a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

December 2002 RESULTS-ORIENTED 

MANAGEMENT

Agency Crosscutting 

Actions and Plans in 

Drug Control, Family 

Poverty, Financial 

Institution Regulation, 

and Public Health 

Systems

GAO-03-320
GAO did not independently verify or assess the information it obtained from

agency performance reports and plans. On the basis of the reports and

plans, GAO found the following:

• Most agencies involved in the crosscutting issues discussed coordination

with other agencies in their performance reports and plans, although the

extent of coordination and level of detail provided varied considerably.

• Most of the agencies we reviewed reported mixed progress in achieving

their fiscal year 2001 goals—meeting some goals, missing others, or not

reporting on progress. Some of the agencies that did not meet their

goals provided reasonable explanations and/or strategies that appeared

reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future.

• The agencies GAO reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal

year 2003 similar to those in 2001, although some agencies added new

goals, dropped existing goals, or dropped goals altogether. Many

agencies discussed strategies that appeared to be reasonably linked to

achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals.

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for

Coordination

Crosscutting program areas

Agency involved

Drug

control

Family

poverty

Financial

institution

regulation

Public

health

systems

Agriculture a a

Federal Reserve a

Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation a

HHS a a

HUD a

Labor a

Justice a

National Credit Union Administration a

State a

Transportation a

Treasury a

Comptroller of the Currency a

Office of Thrift Supervision a

Source: GAO analysis.

RESULTS-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT

Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans

in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial

Institution Regulation, and Public Health

Systems

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-320.

To view the full report, including the scope

 and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Patricia A.

Dalton at (202)-512-6806.

Highlights of GAO-03-320, a report to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S.

Senate

December 2002

GAO’s work has repeatedly shown

that mission fragmentation and

program overlap are widespread in

the federal government.

Implementation of federal

crosscutting programs is often

characterized by numerous

individual agency efforts that are

implemented with little apparent

regard for the presence and efforts

of related activities. GAO has in

the past offered possible

approaches for managing

crosscutting programs, and has

stated that the Government

Performance and Results Act could

provide a framework for

addressing crosscutting efforts.

GAO was asked to examine the

actions and plans agencies

reported in addressing the

crosscutting issues of drug control,

family poverty, financial institution

regulation, and public health

systems. GAO reviewed the fiscal

year 2001 performance reports and

fiscal year 2003 performance plans

for the major agencies involved in

these issues.
Page i GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Contents

Letter 1

Background 2

Scope and Methodology 4

Results in Brief 6

Agencies Involved in Crosscutting Areas Show Opportunities for 

Coordination 8

Drug Control 9

Family Poverty 12

Financial Institution Regulation 16

Public Health Systems 20

Concluding Observations 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendixes

Appendix I: Drug Control 26

Appendix II: Family Poverty 34

Appendix III: Financial Institution Regulation 45

Appendix IV: Public Health Systems 59

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 71

Tables Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area 8

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug 

Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 

Plans 26

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports 28

Table 4: Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for 

Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 31

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports 33

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Family 

Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 

Plans 34
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports 36

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2003 Performance Plans 40

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data reported by Agencies 

Involved in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal 

Year 2001 Performance Reports 43

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in 

Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 

Performance Plans 45

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 48

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 52

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed 

in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 58

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Public 

Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance 

Plans 59

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 61

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving 

Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans 65

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies 

Involved in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports 68
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

ACD Advisory Committee to the Director

AETC AIDS education and training center

CACFP Child and Adult Care Food Program

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CRA Community Reinvestment Act

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DTO drug trafficking organization

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EZ/EC empowerment zone/enterprise communities

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FDICIA Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act

FFEIC Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IC Institutes and Centers

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

NCUA National Credit Union Administration

NIH National Institutes of Health

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

OTS Office of Thrift Supervision

PDTO priority targeted drug trafficking organizations

SBP School Breakfast Program

SCHIP State Children's Health Insurance Program

SFSP Summer Food Service Program

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

WIA Workforce Investment Act

WIC Women, Infants, and Children Program

WtW Welfare-to-Work
Contents

Page iv GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 20, 2002 Letr

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Although federal programs have been designed for different purposes or 

targeted for different population groups, coordination among federal 

programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and 

effectively meet national concerns. Uncoordinated program efforts can 

waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the 

overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results, as envisioned 

by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act), 

implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar results 

should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent and, as 

appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This means that 

federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and 

coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned.

This report is in response to your request that we examine the actions and 

plans agencies reported in addressing the crosscutting program areas you 

identified: drug control, family poverty, financial institution regulation, and 

public health systems. Specifically, for each of the crosscutting program 

areas the objectives of this report were to describe (1) the major agencies 

involved, (2) the type of coordination these agencies discussed in their 

performance reports and plans, (3) the progress these agencies reported in 

their fiscal year 2001 performance reports and, for unmet goals, whether 

the agencies provide explanations and strategies that are reasonably linked 

to achieving the unmet goals in the future, (4) the progress these agencies 

planned to make in fiscal year 2003 and whether agencies describe 

strategies that are reasonably linked to achieving their goals, and (5) how 

agencies discussed the completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data, known shortcomings in the data, and strategies for 

addressing those shortcomings. In fulfilling the request, except as 

otherwise noted, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance report and 

fiscal year 2003 performance plan required by the Results Act for the major 

agencies involved in these crosscutting areas. The Department of Defense 

was not included in this review since it had not issued its combined 

performance report and performance plan.
Page 2 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Background Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program 

overlap are widespread in the federal government.1

 In 1998 and 1999, we 

found that this situation existed in 12 federal mission areas, ranging from 

agriculture to natural resources and environment. We also identified, in 

1998 and 1999, 8 new areas of program overlap, including 50 programs for 

the homeless that were administered by 8 federal agencies. These 

programs provided services for the homeless that appeared to be similar. 

For example, 23 programs operated by 4 agencies offered housing services, 

and 26 programs administered by 6 agencies offered food and nutrition 

services. Although our work indicates that the potential for inefficiency 

and waste exists, it also shows areas where the intentional participation by 

multiple agencies may be a reasonable response to a complex public 

problem. In either situation, implementation of federal crosscutting 

programs is often characterized by numerous individual agency efforts that 

are implemented with little apparent regard for the presence of efforts of 

related activities.

In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for better 

managing crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, 

integration, and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals are 

consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 

appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used 

as a basis for management. One of our oft-cited proposals is to consolidate 

the fragmented federal system to ensure the safety and quality of food.

Perhaps most important, however, we have stated that the Results Act 

could provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, and 

Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting 

program efforts. OMB, for example, could use the governmentwide 

performance plan, which is a key component of this framework, to 

integrate expected agency-level performance. It could also be used to more 

clearly relate and address the contributions of alternative federal 

strategies. Agencies, in turn, could use the annual performance planning 

cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight crosscutting 

program efforts and to provide evidence of the coordination of those 

efforts.

1

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to 

Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, GAO/AIMD-97-146 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997) and U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Barriers to 

Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
Page 3 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

OMB guidance to agencies on the Results Act states that, at a minimum, an 

agency’s annual plan should identify those programs or activities that are 

being undertaken with other agencies to achieve a common purpose or 

objective, that is, interagency and cross-cutting programs. This 

identification need cover only programs and activities that represent a 

significant agency effort. An agency should also review the fiscal year 2003 

performance plans of other agencies participating with it in a crosscutting 

program or activity to ensure that related performance goals and indicators 

for a crosscutting program are consistent and harmonious. As appropriate, 

agencies should modify performance goals to bring about greater synergy 

and interagency support in achieving mutual goals.2

In April 2002, as part of its spring budget planning guidance to agencies for 

preparing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, OMB stated that 

it is working to develop uniform evaluation metrics, or “common 

measures” for programs with similar goals. OMB asked agencies to work 

with OMB staff to develop evaluation metrics for several major 

crosscutting, governmentwide functions as part of their September budget 

submissions. According to OMB, such measures can help raise important 

questions and help inform decisions about how to direct funding and how 

to improve performance in specific programs. OMB’s common measures 

initiative initially focused on the following crosscutting program areas:

• low-income housing assistance,

• job training and employment,

• wildland fire management,

• flood mitigation,

• disaster insurance, and 

• health.

2

OMB Circular A-11, section 220.3g.
Page 4 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

We recently reported that one of the purposes of the Reports Consolidation 

Act of 2000 is to improve the quality of agency financial and performance 

data.3

 We found that only 5 of the 24 CFO Act agencies’ fiscal year 2000 

performance reports included assessments of the completeness and 

reliability of their performance data in their transmittal letters. The other 

19 agencies discussed, at least to some degree, the quality of their 

performance data elsewhere in their performance reports.

Scope and 

Methodology

To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each crosscutting 

program area as follows:

• Drug control focuses on major federal efforts to control the supply of 

illegal drugs through interdiction and seizure, eradication, and arrests.

• Family poverty focuses on major federal efforts to address the needs of 

families in poverty through programs aimed at enhancing family 

independence and well-being. We focused on agencies that provide key 

support and transition tools associated with the income, health, and 

food support and assistance to poor families.

• Financial institution regulation focuses on major federal efforts to 

supervise and regulate depository institutions. Supervision involves 

monitoring, inspecting, and examining depository institutions to assess 

their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Regulation of depository institutions involves making and issuing 

specific regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct 

of banking.

• Public health systems focuses on major federal efforts to prevent and 

control infectious diseases within the United States.

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Reporting: Few Agencies Reported on the 

Completeness and Reliability of Performance Data, GAO-02-372 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

26, 2002).
Page 5 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on our previous 

work and confirmed the agencies involved by reviewing the fiscal year 2001 

Results Act performance report and fiscal year 2003 Results Act 

performance plans for each agency identified as contributing to the 

crosscutting program area. To address the remaining objectives, we 

reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports and fiscal year 2003 

performance plans and used criteria contained in the Reports 

Consolidation Act of 2000 and OMB guidance. The act requires that an 

agency’s performance report include a transmittal letter from the agency 

head containing, in addition to any other content, an assessment of the 

completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data used in 

the report. It also requires that the assessment describe any material 

inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of the data and the actions 

the agency can take and is taking to resolve such inadequacies.

4

OMB guidance states that agency annual plans should include a description 

of how the agency intends to verify and validate the measured values of 

actual performance. The means used should be sufficiently credible and 

specific to support the general accuracy and reliability of the performance 

information that is recorded, collected, and reported.5

We did not include any changes or modifications the agencies may have 

made to the reports or plans after they were issued, except in cases in 

which agency comments provided information from a published update to 

a report or plan. Furthermore, because of the scope and timing of this 

review, information on the progress agencies may have made in addressing 

their management challenges during fiscal year 2002 was not yet available.

We did not independently verify or assess the information we obtained 

from agency performance reports and plans. Also, that an agency chose 

not to discuss its efforts to coordinate in these crosscutting areas in its 

performance reports or plans does not necessarily mean that the agency is 

not coordinating with the appropriate agencies.

We conducted our review from September through November 2002, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

4

31 U.S.C. § 3516(e).

5

OMB Circular A-11, section 220.5a. 
Page 6 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Results in Brief Our review of agency performance reports and plans for the four 

crosscutting areas revealed that there are multiple players within these 

areas pursuing similar or complementary goals and strategies, suggesting 

significant opportunities for coordination to achieve common objectives. 

As we have reported previously, agencies could use the annual 

performance planning cycle to ensure that crosscutting goals are 

consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where 

appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used 

as a basis for management. Annual performance reports and plans could 

then serve as a vehicle to highlight crosscutting program efforts and to 

provide evidence of the coordination of those efforts.

We found most agencies identified the agencies with which they 

coordinated on the crosscutting areas in their performance reports and 

plans, although the specific areas of coordination and level of detail 

provided varied considerably. For example, the Department of 

Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Customs Service to 

finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect that interdiction has on 

drug trafficking organizations. In contrast, in the area of family poverty, 

the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS), a component of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), stated that they coordinated with other agencies, but did 

not specify the agencies or the types of coordination efforts.

The progress agencies reported in meeting their fiscal year 2001 

performance goals across the four crosscutting areas also varied 

considerably. Of the agencies we reviewed, the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) in the area of public health systems and the National Credit 

Union Administration (NCUA) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in 

the area of financial institution regulation reported meeting all of their 

goals in these areas. However, most of the agencies we reviewed reported 

mixed progress in achieving their fiscal year 2001 goals. For example, CMS 

reported meeting two goals, partially meeting one goal, and not meeting a 

fourth goal related to family poverty. Some of the agencies were unable to 

report on progress against specific targets—either because, like the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), they were 

establishing baselines for new measures or because, like the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), there were delays in 

receiving performance data from state and local partner agencies.
Page 7 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Some of the agencies that did not meet one or more of their fiscal year 2001 

performance goals, such as the Department of Labor in the area of family 

poverty, provided reasonable explanations as well as strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to meeting the goals in the future. The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), a component of HHS, provided a reasonable 

explanation for not meeting one of its goal related to public health systems, 

but did not discuss any strategies for achieving the goal in the future. 

The agencies we reviewed generally planned to pursue goals in fiscal year 

2003 that were similar to those they pursued in fiscal year 2001, with 

targets adjusted to reflect either higher or lower levels of performance than 

were planned for fiscal year 2001. Some agencies added new goals, 

modified existing goals, or dropped goals altogether from their fiscal year 

2003 performance plans. Many agencies discussed strategies for achieving 

their fiscal year 2003 goals that appeared to be reasonably linked to the 

performance goals to be achieved. Others, such as NIH and the Health 

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) components of HHS in the 

area of public health systems did not discuss any strategies for achieving 

their fiscal year 2003 goals.

Eight of the 12 agencies we reviewed for all the crosscutting areas—

Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, 

Transportation, and Treasury, and OCC and OTS—commented on the 

overall quality and reliability of the data in their performance reports. For 

example, the Secretary’s message in the Department of the Treasury’s fiscal 

year 2001 performance report stated that, as required by the Reports 

Consolidation Act of 2000, the Secretary had assessed the data in the report 

and determined that the data were reliable and complete with noted 

exceptions. Beyond such overarching statements, we also found more 

detailed discussion of the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the 

performance data reported. For example, Transportation reported its data 

verification and validation procedures for each of its performance 

measures. In contrast, the Department of State in the area of drug control 

and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board), the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and NCUA in the area of 

financial institution regulation did not discuss potential shortcomings to 

their data or whether the data used in their performance reports were 

complete, reliable, and credible.
Page 8 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Agencies Involved in 

Crosscutting Areas 

Show Opportunities for 

Coordination

As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved in each of the 

crosscutting program areas we reviewed. 

Table 1: Agencies Reviewed for Each Crosscutting Program Area

Source: GAO analysis.

a

Although our review focused primarily on department-level reports and plans, in some cases our 

review also focused on bureau-level sections of the reports and plans as indicated in the notes that 

follow.

b

ONDCP is an executive office of the President and is not required to issue a performance plan or 

report under the Results Act. Instead, we reviewed the following ONDCP documents for this analysis: 

2002 Final Report on the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy; Performance Measures of 

Effectiveness: 2000 Report; The National Drug Control Strategy, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Summary;

and The National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual Report.

c

The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, but it has chosen to voluntarily comply 

with the act. The Board issued both its performance report and performance plans biannually rather 

than annually to reflect its budget process, which occurs biannually.

d

Within HHS, we looked at ACF and CMS for family poverty and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH for public health.

e

Within Transportation, we looked at the Coast Guard in the area of drug control.

f

Within Treasury, we looked at the Customs Service in the area of drug control.

The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed 

information contained in the tables that appear in appendixes I through IV.

Crosscutting program areas

Agency involveda

Drug 

controlb

Family 

poverty

Financial 

institution 

regulation

Public 

health 

systems

Agriculture a a

Federal Reservec a

FDIC a

HHSd a a

HUD a

Labor a

Justice a

NCUA a

State a

Transportatione a

Treasuryf a

OCC a

OTS a
Page 9 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Drug Control Fourteen million Americans use illegal drugs regularly, and drug-related 

illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $110 billion 

annually. From 1990 through 1997, there were more than 100,000 druginduced deaths in the United States.6

 Despite U.S. and Colombian efforts, 

the illegal narcotics threat from Colombia continues to grow and become 

more complex. From 1995 through 1999, coca cultivation and cocaine 

production in Colombia more than doubled and Colombia became a major 

supplier of the heroin consumed in the United States. Moreover, over time, 

the drug threat has become more difficult to address.7

 ONDCP was 

established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to set policies, priorities, 

and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The Director of 

ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, 

which directs the nation's antidrug efforts and establishes a budget and 

guidelines for cooperation among federal, state, and local entities. 

ONDCP’s 2001 Annual Report discussed two strategic goals that pertain to 

controlling the supply of drugs that enter the United States, including 

(1) “shielding U.S. borders from the drug threat” and (2) “reducing the 

supply of illegal drugs.” ONDCP reported two performance goals under the 

strategic goals—reduce the rate of illicit drug flow through transit zones 

and reduce the shipment rate of illicit drugs from arrival zones and supply 

zones.

For fiscal year 2001, all the agencies we reviewed—Justice, State, 

Transportation, and Treasury—discussed coordination with other agencies 

in the area of drug control, although the level of detail varied. For example, 

Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP and 

Customs to finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect that 

interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Also, Justice reported 

that it collaborated with Transportation to prosecute cases that relate to 

maritime drug smuggling. In contrast, State identified the lead and partner 

agencies it coordinated with to accomplish its goals, but it did not discuss 

specific coordination efforts. None of the agencies distinguished between 

coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those that were 

planned for fiscal year 2003. 

6

U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: Assets DOD Contributes to Reducing the 

Illegal Drug Supply Have Declined, GAO/NSIAD-00-9 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 1999).

7

U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U.S. Assistance to Colombia Will Take 

Years to Produce Results, GAO-01-26 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 2000).
Page 10 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

None of the agencies reported having met all of their goals and measures 

relating to drug control in fiscal year 2001. Customs reported that it met 

eight of its nine measures for seizures of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. 

Customs reported that it did not meet its target for number of marijuana 

seizures. State reported that it met the targets for its goal of increasing 

foreign governments’ effectiveness in dissolving major drug trafficking 

organizations and prosecuting and convicting major traffickers. For the 

other goal—increasing foreign governments’ effectiveness in reducing the 

cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and marijuana—State did not meet two 

of its four targets. For its two measures, Transportation reported that it did 

not establish a target for one, the amount of drugs that are seized or 

destroyed at sea, and it did not meet its target for the other, the seizure rate 

for cocaine that is shipped through the transit zone. Justice reported that it 

exceeded the target for one measure—number of priority drug trafficking 

organizations dismantled or disrupted by the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA)—and did not meet one of two targets for the second 

measure—the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The four agencies we reviewed—Justice, State, Transportation, and 

Treasury—provided explanations for not meeting their fiscal year 2001 

goals that appeared reasonable. For example, Customs which is under 

Treasury stated that although it did not meet its target for the number of 

marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of marijuana in fiscal year 2001 

than in any other year. Customs stated that it believes that the number of 

seizures dropped because of an overall increase in sizes of marijuana loads. 

Furthermore, it stated that the heightened state of alert on the border 

following the events of September 11, 2001, might have deterred the 

entrance into the country of hundreds of smaller, personal-sized loads. 

However, none of the agencies discussed strategies for achieving the unmet 

goals and measures in the future.

According to their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, the agencies we 

reviewed expected to make progress on goals similar to those established 

for fiscal year 2001. All of Treasury’s performance targets were adjusted to 

reflect higher anticipated levels of performance. Justice and State 

reflected a mixture of higher and lower anticipated levels of performance. 

Although its goals remained the same, Transportation had measures that 

differed from those reported in fiscal year 2001. Justice and Transportation 

provided strategies that appear reasonably linked to achieving their goals 

for fiscal year 2003. For the goal of reducing the supply and use of drugs in 

the United States, Justice stated that the nine Organized Crime Drug 
Page 11 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams would coordinate to develop a 

national priority target list of the most significant drug and money 

laundering organizations. As drug organizations are dismantled and more 

organizations are identified, the OCDETF teams will monitor their progress 

and modify the target list. To achieve its target for the amount of drugs 

seized or destroyed at sea—Transportation stated that the Coast Guard will 

(1) operate along maritime routes to deter attempts to smuggle drugs and 

(2) finalize an interagency study that focuses on the deterrent impact that 

interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Customs did not discuss 

any strategies for achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. State provided only 

general statements about how it planned to achieve its fiscal year 2003 

goals.

Justice, Transportation, and Treasury each commented on the overall 

quality and reliability of its data. For example, in its combined report and 

plan, Justice states that to ensure that data contained in this document are 

reliable, each reporting component was surveyed to ensure that the data 

reported met the OMB standard for data reliability. Data that did not meet 

this standard were not included in the report and plan. These agencies also 

discussed the quality of specific performance data in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports to various degrees. In its fiscal year 2001 

performance report, Justice provided a discussion of data verification and 

validation for each performance measure. For example, for the measure of 

drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the FBI, an FBI field manager 

reviewed and approved data that were entered into the system and the data 

were verified through the FBI’s inspection process. Transportation 

reported that it used data entry software to ensure data quality and 

consistency by employing selection lists and logic checks. Also, 

Transportation stated that internal analysis and review of published data by 

external parties helps identify errors. Furthermore, Customs reported on 

the completeness, reliability, and credibility of its performance data by 

discussing how it verifies the data for each performance measure. State 

did not report on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of its 

performance data.

While Justice, Transportation, and Treasury acknowledged shortcomings in 

their performance data, they did not report steps to resolve or minimize 

these shortcomings. Justice reported one shortcoming which was the need 

to improve its reporting system for one measure—number of priority drug 

trafficking organizations dismantled or disrupted by DEA. Transportation 

stated that although data verification and validation occurs several times in 

the data reporting process, a potential limitation to the accuracy of its data 
Page 12 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

could stem from data duplication and coding errors. Customs reported 

that while its data could be considered reliable, the data could be subject to 

input errors or duplicative reporting not identified by reviewers. State did 

not report on shortcomings in its performance data.

Family Poverty Federal government agencies have major programs aimed at supporting 

families classified as poor. For example, HHS’s Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program makes $16.8 billion in federal funds 

available to states each year.8

 While TANF delegates wide discretion to the 

states to design and implement the program, it does specify four broad 

program goals that focus on children and families:

• providing assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for 

in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;

• ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;

• preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; 

and

• encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.9

8

Although the TANF block grant program was due to expire on September 30, 2002, 

Congress provided for an extension of the program until January 11, 2003. By that time, 

Congress must either reauthorize the program or provide for an additional extension.

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Data Available to Assess TANF’s 

Progress, GAO-01-298 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2001).
Page 13 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

In addition, Agriculture’s Food Stamp Program helps low-income 

individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing 

their incomes with food stamp benefits. Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition 

Service and the states jointly implement the Food Stamp Program, which 

provided about $15 billion in benefits to over 17 million low-income 

individuals in the United States during fiscal year 2000.10 In 1998, Congress 

passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) to consolidate services of 

many employment and training programs, mandating that states and 

localities use a centralized service delivery structure—the one-stop center 

system—to provide most federally funded employment and training 

assistance. We previously reported that several challenges, including 

program differences between TANF and WIA and different information 

systems used by welfare and workforce agencies, inhibit state and local 

coordination efforts.11 For example, different program definitions, such as 

what constitutes work, as well as complex reporting requirements under 

TANF and WIA hamper state and local coordination efforts. Though some 

states and localities have found creative ways to work around these issues, 

the differences remain barriers to coordination for many others. For 

example, antiquated welfare and workforce information systems are often 

not equipped to share data with each other, and as a result, sometimes onestop center staff members have to enter the same client data into two 

separate systems. Although HHS and Labor have each provided some 

assistance to the states on how to coordinate services, available guidance 

has not specifically addressed the challenges that many continue to face. 

Moreover, HHS and Labor have not addressed differences in program 

definitions and reporting requirements under TANF and WIA. To address 

the obstacles to coordination, we recommended that HHS and Labor work 

together to develop ways to jointly disseminate information on how some 

states and localities have taken advantage of the flexibility afforded to 

them under TANF and WIA to pursue coordination strategies to address 

some of these obstacles to coordination. We also recommended that HHS 

and Labor, either individually or jointly, promote research that would 

examine the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF 

clients.

10U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Program Integrity and 

Participation Challenges, GAO-01-881T (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2001).

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities 

Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on 

Effective Approaches, GAO-02-696 (Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002). 
Page 14 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

The agencies we reviewed generally discussed in their performance reports 

and plans their efforts to coordinate with other federal agencies on 

programs that address family poverty. Three major interagency task forces 

bring all of the agencies we reviewed, plus others, together to coordinate 

on such programs: (1) the Interagency Council on the Homeless, which 

includes such federal entities as HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Commerce, 

Education, Energy, Justice, Labor, Defense, Transportation, Veterans 

Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. 

Postal Service, (2) OMB’s Workforce Investment Act Committee, which 

includes HUD, Labor, HHS, and Education, to address the nation’s 

employment issues, and (3) the Workforce Excellence Network, which 

comprises Education, HHS, and Labor, conducts two major national 

conferences each year, in which Labor is able to “showcase” its best WIA 

programs. In addition, three of the five agencies we reviewed identified 

individual coordination efforts outside these task forces and specified the 

programs on which they coordinated. For example, HHS’s ACF reported 

that it works with Labor in Welfare-to-Work (WtW) and WIA efforts, 

Transportation in their Access to Jobs program, Education in providing 

education and training services, and HUD in providing housing assistance. 

Agriculture and HHS’s CMS stated that they coordinated with other 

agencies, but did not specify the agencies or the types of coordination 

efforts.

The agencies we reviewed reported varied progress in achieving their fiscal 

year 2001 goals and measures. For example, CMS reported meeting two 

goals, partially meeting one goal, and not meeting a fourth goal related to 

family poverty. For its goal of promoting self-sufficiency and asset 

development, HUD reported meeting the targets for seven of its 

performance indicators, missing or expecting to miss six targets, not 

having enough data for one target, and establishing baselines for 4 of its 18 

performance indicators. Incomplete data prevented Agriculture, ACF, and 

HUD from reporting on all of their measures. For example, ACF was 

unable to report on its progress for 18 of its 23 performance indicators 

related to three of its goals linked to family poverty due to the time lag in 

receiving and validating data from states, localities, and other program 

partners. However, ACF was able to report that it fell short in achieving its 

targets for the 5 performance indicators related to two of its goals: 

improving the quality of child care and the Head Start Health Status 

program.
Page 15 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

All of the agencies provided explanations that appeared reasonable for not 

meeting their goals. For example, ACF reported that two factors 

contributed to its failure to meet two of the three targets for its goal of 

improving Head Start Health Status: (1) a high student turnover rate 

hindered the students’ receipt of health care despite Head Start’s medical 

referrals and (2) Medicaid’s inability to cover dental and mental health 

treatment for Head Start students prevented them from receiving proper 

care. In addition, these agencies generally provided strategies that 

appeared reasonably linked to achieving the unmet goals in the future. For 

example, Labor outlined strategies to address its two unmet goals relating 

to higher wages for and retention of WtW participants in the workforce and 

increasing the number of child care apprenticeship programs and 

apprentices. Specifically, Labor proposed making retention of WtW 

participants more attractive by increasing grantees’ use of tax credits and 

continuing the Pathways to Advancement pilot project, which subsidizes 

employers, upgrades and advances current TANF “alumni,” and validates 

data at the program level, among other strategies. 

For their fiscal year 2003 plan, the agencies we reviewed generally set goals 

similar to those established for fiscal year 2001, but increased the targets to 

reflect anticipated higher levels of performance. The exception to this 

consistency was HUD, which reported that the draft of its updated strategic 

plan for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 affected the fiscal year 2003 

performance plan framework. The new framework introduced eight 

strategic goals, two of which addressed family poverty. Objectives 

included helping families in public and assisted housing make progress 

toward self-sufficiency and become homeowners, ending chronic 

homelessness in 10 years, and helping homeless individuals and families 

move to permanent housing. Four of the five agencies we reviewed—

Agriculture, ACF, HUD, and Labor—provided reasonable strategies for 

achieving at least one of their fiscal year 2003 goals related to family 

poverty. For example, Labor lists departmentwide means and strategies for 

meeting all of its goals, most of which are to continue or improve 

preexisting efforts. Following the list, Labor describes eight significant 

new or enhanced efforts in fiscal year 2003. For its goal of having states 

develop a baseline and methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-

year-old children under Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the 

development of each state’s baseline measure and reporting methodology, 

but it does not describe specific strategies for how it intends to achieve its 

targets for this area.
Page 16 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

All of the agencies we reviewed addressed data quality issues in some form, 

although the degree to which such issues were addressed varied. Three of 

the five agencies—Agriculture, HUD, and Labor—included a broad 

statement at the beginning or end of their reports or plans stating that the 

reported data were generally reliable. Because all of the agencies we 

reviewed rely on data from the states and other grantees to report on 

performance for at least one of their goals, they reported on the difficulty 

of obtaining quality data in a timely manner. However, all of the agencies 

reported that they have methods for reviewing the performance data for 

consistency and completeness. For example, CMS stated that it had builtin quality assurance checks, technical consultants, and a review of data by 

CMS personnel. In addition, the agencies generally acknowledged 

shortcomings in the data and discussed steps they were taking to resolve or 

minimize the shortcomings. For example, HUD reported that it is 

discontinuing or updating the 18 performance indicators we reviewed in its 

fiscal year 2001 report because of its inability to address data reliability 

issues and because the connection between the indicators and the outcome 

measure was unknown, among other reasons. For the estimated data, HUD 

stated that accurate numbers would be reported in its fiscal year 2002 

performance report if adjustments were necessary.

Financial Institution 

Regulation

Financial regulation of depository institutions in the United States is a 

highly complex system. Federal responsibilities for regulation and 

supervision are assigned to five federal regulators: FDIC, the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System,12 NCUA, OCC, and OTS.13 FDIC 

is the primary federal regulator and supervisor for federally insured statechartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System and 

for state savings banks whose deposits are federally insured. The Board is 

the federal regulator and supervisor for bank-holding companies and is the 

primary federal regulator for state-chartered banks that are members of the 

Federal Reserve System. OCC is the primary regulator of federally 

chartered banks or national banks. OTS is the primary regulator of all 

federal and state-chartered thrifts whose deposits are federally insured and 

12The Board believes that it is not covered under the Results Act, but it has chosen to 

voluntarily comply with the act. The Board issued both its performance report and 

performance plans biannually rather than annually to reflect its budget process, which 

occurs biannually.

13State-chartered banks are supervised jointly by their respective federal regulators and the 

state bank regulator.
Page 17 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

their holding companies. NCUA is the primary federal regulator for credit 

unions. 

A primary objective of federal depository institution regulators is to ensure 

the safe and sound practices and operations of individual depository 

institutions through regulation and supervision.14 Regulation of depository 

institutions involves making and issuing specific regulations and guidelines 

governing the structure and conduct of banking. Supervision involves the 

monitoring, inspecting, and examining of depository institutions to assess 

their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Each federal depository regulator is responsible for its respective 

institutions; for example, the Board examines and regulates state member 

banks and OCC examines and regulates national banks. 

Although the Board, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA are responsible for 

specific depository institutions, all of the agencies have similar oversight 

responsibilities for developing and implementing regulations, conducting 

examinations and off-site monitoring, and taking enforcement actions for 

those institutions that are under their respective purview. To ensure that 

depository institutions are receiving consistent treatment in examinations, 

enforcement actions, and regulatory decisions, coordination among the 

regulators is essential. In 1979, Congress established the Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to promote uniformity in the 

supervision of depository institutions by the Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and 

OTS. It is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform 

principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of 

financial institutions and to make recommendations to promote uniformity 

in the supervision of financial institutions. 

Generally, the performance reports and plans of the federal depository 

institutions regulators discussed possible coordination on crosscutting 

goals.15 The performance reports and plans of FDIC, OCC, and OTS 

described the types of coordination that they conduct with the other 

regulators. The Board’s 2002-2003 plan includes a section on interagency 

14FDIC and the Board have other responsibilities in addition to their supervision and 

regulation functions. For example, FDIC is responsible for federal deposit insurance funds. 

The Board’s responsibilities include monetary policy development and implementation and 

payments and settlements’ system operation and oversight.

15We reviewed OCC and OTS’s fiscal year 2002 performance plans instead of their fiscal year 

2003 performance plans because their fiscal year 2003 plans were still in draft form.
Page 18 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

coordination of crosscutting issues. For instance, the section of the plan 

entitled, “Interagency Coordination of Crosscutting Issues” stated that the 

Board formally coordinates with other federal depository institutions 

regulators through the FFIEC and its participation with the Results Act 

Financial Institutions Regulatory Working Group, a coordinating 

committee of the depository institution regulators to address and report on 

issues of mutual concern. The performance report and plan of NCUA did 

not include any discussion of coordination efforts with the other federal 

depository institution regulators.

In 2001 and 2002, the federal depository institution regulators jointly issued 

guidance or regulations on a number of occasions. For example, the 

regulators often jointly issue guidance in areas such as the risks of 

brokered and other rate-sensitive deposits, temporary balance sheet 

growth, clarification on the accounting and reporting for loans held for 

sale, and consumer privacy. In addition, earlier this year, the federal 

depository institution regulators jointly issued proposed regulations to 

implement section 326 of the USA Patriot Act on customer identification. 

In 2001, they jointly issued guidelines on safeguarding confidential 

customer information. 

On the basis of their fiscal year 2001 performance reports, all the federal 

depository institution regulators reported they made progress in achieving 

their fiscal year 2001 goals for the supervision and regulation function. The 

Board, FDIC, and OCC each reported meeting all of their goals except for 

one related to the examinations of depository institutions that were due for 

a safety and soundness examination in 2001. However, each of the three 

agencies provided a reasonable explanation for not achieving the goal. 

FDIC was unable to examine 11 banks that were scheduled for an 

examination for the following reasons: some institutions merged or 

converted their charters, some institutions moved into or changed their 

capital categories requiring a change in examination intervals, and one 

institution converted its information system. The Board did not meet its 

goal because it failed to complete 17 bank examinations, as required by 

statute and on the basis of their financial condition in 2001, but the Board 

provided an appropriate reason for the delay—scheduling problems with 

state bank regulatory agencies. The Board reported that it is implementing 

a new scheduling system that will partially resolve these problems. NCUA 

reported it generally met its performance goals, although out of its four 

strategic goals, it missed one out of five outcome goals for two and was 

unable to report on most of the outcome goals for another. OTS reported 

meeting all of its goals. 
Page 19 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

On the basis of their fiscal year 2003 performance plans, three of the five 

federal depository institution regulators designed strategies to achieve 

their performance goals that appear to be reasonable. Similar to the fiscal 

year 2001 performance reports, the performance goals focused on the 

scheduling of examinations under specific time frames, enforcement 

actions, and reviewing compliance with consumer protection statutes 

relating to consumer financial transactions. The Board’s performance plan 

outlined strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving its goals 

and objectives for promoting a safe, sound, competitive, and accessible 

banking system. For example, the Board’s plan proposed focusing on the 

areas of highest risk, promoting sound risk management practices, 

understanding and accommodating the effects of financial innovation and 

technology, improving international banking and supervisory practices, and 

refining and strengthening the foreign bank organizations program, among 

other strategies. The FDIC performance plan included a strategy for 

achieving its planned performance goals that also appeared reasonable. 

For example, FDIC plans to analyze examination-related data collected in 

the System of Uniform Reporting of Compliance and Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) Examination to determine whether it achieved 

targeted performance levels during the reporting period. In its 

performance plan, OCC discussed strategies for each of its strategic goals. 

OTS discussed general strategies, which were not clearly linked to 

particular performance goals. 

Of the five regulators, only the performance reports of OCC and OTS 

commented on the completeness, reliability, and credibility of the data for 

the supervision and regulation function. OCC’s performance report for 

fiscal year 2001 concluded the data were accurate for some of the 

performance measurements used in the report. In its fiscal year 2001 

performance report, OTS concluded that the data for its performance 

measures met standards for accuracy and auditability. The performance 

reports issued by the Board, FDIC, and NCUA did not discuss whether the 

performance data for the supervision and regulation areas used in the 

reports were complete, reliable, and credible. None of their performance 

reports commented on the potential shortcomings of these data.
Page 20 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Public Health Systems Broadly speaking, federal involvement in the area of public health systems 

encompasses a mix of efforts to maintain the health of a diverse 

population, such as directly providing health services, regulating 

prescription drugs, or paying for medical services provided to the aged and 

the needy. In this report, we focused one aspect of the public health 

system—federal efforts to prevent and control infectious diseases within 

the United States. The spread of infectious diseases is a public health 

problem once thought to be largely under control. However, outbreaks over 

the last decade illustrate that infectious diseases remain a serious public 

health threat.16 For example, foodborne disease in the United States 

annually causes an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 

and about 5,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC).17 The resurgence of some infectious diseases is 

particularly alarming because previously effective forms of control are 

breaking down. For example, some pathogens (disease-causing organisms) 

have become resistant to antibiotics used to bring them under control or 

have developed strains that no longer respond to the antibiotics. The need 

for concerted efforts to prevent such diseases is critical to reducing this 

threat to the public. We have previously reported on various aspects of 

protecting public health, such as ensuring the vaccination of children 

through the Vaccines for Children program18 and limitations in several of 

CDC’s foodborne disease surveillance systems.19

Agriculture and each of the five components of HHS we reviewed—CDC, 

CMS, FDA, HRSA, and NIH—discussed in their performance reports and 

performance plans coordination efforts with other agencies related to 

preventing infectious diseases. For example, CDC reported that it 

coordinated with (1) Agriculture and FDA on its food safety programs,

(2) HRSA, CMS, FDA, and NIH, among others, on its immunization 

16 U.S. General Accounting Office, Emerging Infectious Diseases: Consensus on Needed 

Laboratory Capacity Could Strengthen Surveillance, GAO/HEHS-99-26 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 5, 1999).

17 U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Safety: CDC Is Working to Address Limitations in 

Several of Its Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems, GAO-01-973 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 7, 2001).

18U.S. General Accounting Office, Vaccines for Children: Reexamination of Program Goals 

and Implementation Needed to Ensure Vaccination, GAO/PEMD-95-22 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 15, 1995).

19 GAO-01-973.
Page 21 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

objectives, and (3) NIH and FDA on the development of new diagnostic and 

treatment tools and better vaccines for tuberculosis. Also, Agriculture 

reported that it coordinated with HHS and the Environmental Protection 

Agency regarding the goal to protect the public health by reducing the 

incidence of foodborne illnesses. However, none of the agencies discussed 

specific details about the coordination.

According to its combined fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal 

year 2003 performance plan, NIH was the only agency that reported 

achieving its public health systems goal—to develop new or improved 

approaches for preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease 

and disability. Agriculture, FDA, and CDC each reported missing some of 

its performance targets. In addition, CDC, CMS, and HRSA lacked data to 

report on some or all of their performance goals for fiscal year 2001. For 

example, HRSA indicated that the performance data for its goal—increase 

the proportion of the national AIDS education and training center (AETC) 

interventions provided to minority health care providers—will not be 

collected until February 2003. Three agencies—CDC, FDA, and 

Agriculture—provided explanations for not meeting a measure or goal that 

appeared reasonable. For example, FDA reported that it missed its 

target—inspect 90 percent of high-risk domestic food establishments each 

year—because the agency purposefully diverted resources for these 

inspections to focus on the even greater threat of bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy that was breaking out in Europe at the time. None of these 

agencies discussed strategies to achieve the unmet goals in the future.

For fiscal year 2003, HHS’s CDC, CMS, FDA, and HRSA, and Agriculture, 

reported they expect to make progress on goals that were generally the 

same as those they reported on in fiscal year 2001. NIH developed two new 

subgoals for its goal of developing new or improved approaches to 

preventing or delaying the onset or progression of disease and disability, 

but did not indicate targets for the new goals. CDC developed a new goal 

of conducting research to identify and assess community-based prevention 

interventions. HRSA plans to drop one of its goals—“increase the number 

of minority health care and social service providers who receive training in 

AETCs”—because measuring the percentage of training interventions 

provided to minority health providers was determined to be a more 

accurate and appropriate method to measure the program’s progress in 

training health care providers. CMS and HRSA reported that they expected 

to achieve higher levels of performance for all of their targets. CDC, FDA, 

and Agriculture planned for a mixture of higher and lower levels of 

performance in fiscal year 2003.
Page 22 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Agriculture and three of the five HHS components we reviewed discussed 

strategies that appeared reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals. For example, Agriculture reported that its performance goal—

create a coordinated national and international food safety risk 

management system to ensure safety of U.S. meat and poultry—has a set of 

specifically outlined strategies to follow in order to accomplish the goal, 

including (1) develop national performance standards for ready-to-eat meat 

and poultry items, (2) ensure food safety requirements are followed by 

monitoring slaughter and process plants, and (3) increase reviews of 

foreign inspection systems to ensure the safety of imported meat, poultry, 

and egg products. In contrast, NIH and HRSA did not discuss strategies for 

achieving their fiscal year 2003 goals. 

Agriculture and NIH commented on the overall quality and reliability of the 

performance data in their fiscal year 2001 performance reports. For 

example, NIH progress toward meetings its goals was assessed by its GPRA 

Assessment Working Group, which reviewed the performance data. In 

addition, CDC, CMS, and Agriculture discussed aspects of data quality for 

each of their performance measures. For example, CDC’s combined report 

and plan addresses data verification and validation for each data source 

corresponding to each goal. FDA and HRSA discussed narrow aspects of 

data quality for certain measures.

FDA and HRSA acknowledged shortcomings in their performance data and 

reported steps to resolve or minimize those shortcomings. For example, 

FDA stated that existing public health data systems are not adequate to 

provide accurate and comprehensive baseline data needed to draw direct 

relationships between FDA’s regulatory activities and changes in the 

number and types of foodborne illnesses that occur annually in the United 

States. Therefore, through coordination with CDC and Agriculture, FDA 

reported developing an improved food safety surveillance program called 

FoodNet. HRSA reported limitations related to its HIV/AIDS data 

collection efforts. For example, the reporting system that holds the data 

contains duplicate data about individuals that prevents accurate 

conclusions from being made. To minimize the limitations, HRSA reported 

it allows grantees the option of participating in a client-level reporting 

system. CDC and CMS acknowledged shortcomings in their data but did 

not discuss steps to minimize the shortcomings. NIH and Agriculture did 

not discuss any limitations to their performance data in the area of public 

health systems.
Page 23 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Concluding 

Observations

We have previously stated that the Results Act could provide OMB, 

agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing 

crosscutting program efforts. In its guidance, OMB clearly encourages 

agencies to use their performance plans as a tool to communicate and 

coordinate with other agencies on programs being undertaken for common 

purposes to ensure that related performance goals and indicators are 

consistent and harmonious. We have also stated that the Results Act could 

also be used as a vehicle to more clearly relate and address the 

contributions of alternative federal strategies. The President’s common 

measures initiative, by developing metrics that can be used to compare the 

performance of different agencies contributing to common objectives, 

appears to be a step in this direction.

Some of the agencies we reviewed appear to be using their performance 

reports and plans as a vehicle to assist in collaborating and coordinating 

program areas that are crosscutting in nature. Those that provided more 

detailed information on the nature of their coordination provided greater 

confidence that they are working in concert with other agencies to achieve 

common objectives. Other agencies do not appear to be using their plans 

and reports to the extent they could to describe their coordination efforts 

to Congress, citizens, and other agencies.

Furthermore the quality of the performance information reported—how 

agencies explain unmet goals and discuss strategies for achieving 

performance goals in the future, and overall descriptions of the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of the performance information 

reported—varied considerably. Although we found a number of agencies 

that provided detailed information about how they verify and validate 

individual measures, only 5 of the 10 agencies we reviewed for all the 

crosscutting areas commented on the overall quality and reliability of the 

data in their performance reports consistent with the requirements of the 

Reports Consolidation Act. Without such statements, performance 

information lacks the credibility needed to provide transparency of 

government operations so that Congress, program managers, and other 

decision makers can use the information.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We sent drafts of this report to the respective agencies for comments. We 

received comments from Agriculture, the Board, FDIC, HHS, HUD, Labor, 

and Treasury, including OCC and OTS. The agencies generally agreed with 
Page 24 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

our findings. The comments we received were mostly technical and we 

have incorporated them where appropriate.

Regarding drug control, Justice, through its Office of Legal Policy, 

commented that, as of November 2002, Justice had formalized increased 

cooperation with ONDCP on drug policy and operations.

Regarding public health systems, the NIH component of HHS commented 

that the prevention goal GAO looked at is one of five goals that together 

that give a comprehensive picture of the performance of NIH’s research 

program. Furthermore, NIH commented that there are many formal and 

informal ways in which it coordinates its work in the prevention arena that 

are not reflected in its performance plan. For example, NIH cites the NextGeneration Smallpox Vaccine Initiative, an intradepartmental task force 

consisting of representatives from the Office of Public Health Policy, CDC, 

FDA, and NIH. We acknowledge this limitation in the scope and 

methodology section of the report.

Regarding family poverty, HUD commented that, although GAO’s review 

focused on two of HUD’s eight goals, it believes all of its goals and many of 

its indicators have an impact on family poverty. We do not dispute HUD’s 

assertion that many of its goal address family poverty broadly. However, 

we focused on the goals that appeared to be most directly related to the 

scope we defined in our scope and methodology section.

Regarding financial institution regulation, FDIC commented that a lack of 

specific reference in the performance report regarding the completeness, 

reliability and credibility of the data should not lead to a negative inference.

We are sending copies of this report to the President, the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget, the congressional leadership, other 

Members of Congress, and the heads of major departments and agencies. 

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http:// www.gao.gov.
Page 25 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Elizabeth 

Curda on (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov. Major contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

Patricia A. Dalton

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 26 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix I

Drug Control AAppenednxidexiIs

Table 2: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 

Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

Department of Justicea Justice’s combined report and plan provided a 

discussion of crosscutting activities for each 

performance goal. Justice stated that its annual 

goal—to reduce the threat, trafficking, and related 

violence of illegal drugs by disrupting drug trafficking 

organizations—had two performance goals under it. 

The two performance goals were (1) reduction in the 

supply and use of drugs within the United States and 

(2) disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking 

criminal enterprises. Pertaining to the annual goal, 

Justice reported that it collaborated with the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the 

intelligence community to support the work of the 

National Drug Intelligence Center. In order to 

achieve the two performance goals, Justice reported 

collaboration with the Department of Transportation 

to prosecute cases that relate to maritime drug 

smuggling. Justice reported that it coordinated with 

the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal 

Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the 

Department of Defense to create the Special 

Operations Division that produces data analyses of 

priority targeted drug trafficking organizations 

(PDTO). 

Justice makes no distinction between coordination 

efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those 

that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

Department of State State’s fiscal year 2001 performance report identified 

agencies with which it coordinated on two 

performance goals relating to drug control—

(1) increase foreign governments’ effectiveness in 

reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and 

marijuana and (2) increase foreign governments’ 

effectiveness in dissolving major drug trafficking 

organizations and prosecuting and convicting major 

traffickers. For the first goal, State identified lead and 

partner agencies that it coordinated with to 

accomplish the goal, including the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), the Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA), and DEA. Also, for the 

second goal, State identified lead and partner 

agencies such as USAID, DEA, Customs, Coast 

Guard, and CIA. The report did not discuss specific 

efforts on which State and the other listed agencies 

collaborated. 

State reported no planned coordination efforts 

among agencies that relate to drug control for fiscal 

year 2003. 
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 27 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program 

Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of State, U.S. Department of State Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of 

Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the 

Treasury Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan 

and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

a

Justice issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

b

Transportation issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 

performance plan.

c

The U.S. Customs Service, a bureau within the Department of the Treasury, issued a consolidated 

fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan. Because Treasury did not 

issue a fiscal year 2003 departmentwide performance plan, we reviewed the consolidated report and 

plan for Customs and the fiscal year 2001 Treasury report. 

Department of 

Transportationb

In its combined performance report and plan, 

Transportation reported coordinating with other 

agencies on issues related to drug control. It stated 

that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP and 

Customs to finalize an interagency study of the 

deterrent effect that interdiction has on drug 

trafficking organizations. Also, the Coast Guard and 

Customs coordinated to provide in-depth law 

enforcement defense against drug traffickers. 

Defense provided detection and monitoring support, 

and provided ships to support interdiction efforts at 

sea. Transportation worked with Justice to 

coordinate drug intelligence. State provided 

diplomatic liaison with other countries and supported 

Transportation’s efforts in bilateral agreements to 

counter drug smuggling.

In addition, Transportation identified drug goals 

established by ONDCP. However, the link between 

the strategic goals from ONDCP and Transportation’s 

performance measures was not clear.

Transportation makes no distinction between 

coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 

and those that are planned for fiscal year 2003. 

Department of the 

Treasuryc

In Treasury’s report, it stated that Customs 

coordinated with the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service as well as other law enforcement and 

inspection agencies around and along the borders. 

In Customs’ combined report and plan, it said that 

Customs coordinated with ONDCP and the 

International Crime Control Strategy.

Customs makes no distinction between coordination 

efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those 

that are planned for fiscal year 2003.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 28 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 3: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future?

Justice Justice reported two performance goals related to 

drug control: (1) reduce the supply and use of drugs 

in the United States and (2) disrupt and dismantle 

major drug trafficking organizations. Justice stated 

that the measure for the first goal was newly 

established for fiscal year 2002 when the baselines 

of estimates of the consumption amount of cocaine, 

heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana were to be 

developed. According to the combined report and 

plan, Justice reported on two measures pertaining to 

the goal of disrupting and dismantling major drug 

trafficking organizations:

1. number of PDTOs dismantled or disrupted by 

DEA and

2. number of drug trafficking organizations 

dismantled by the FBI.

Justice exceeded the target for the first measure. 

Justice exceeded one of the two targets for the 

second measure—the number of identified drug 

trafficking organizations linked to national PDTOs. 

Justice reported that it did not meet the other 

target—the number of drug trafficking organizations 

dismantled by the FBI. 

According to its combined plan and report, Justice 

provided an explanation for not meeting the target for 

the measure of the number of drug trafficking 

organizations dismantled by the FBI that appeared 

reasonable. Justice stated that its rationale for not 

achieving the target was the need to address other 

priorities, resulting in a reduction of 91 special agent 

positions associated with counterdrug activities. 

However, the department did not discuss strategies 

to meet the measure in the future. Justice provided 

an overall strategy for achieving its fiscal year 2003 

goals. 
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 29 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

State State reported that it exceeded four of six targets for 

the performance measures under the two goals 

related to drug control, which were

1. increase foreign governments’ effectiveness in 

reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, 

and marijuana and 

2. increase foreign governments’ effectiveness in 

dissolving major drug trafficking organizations 

and prosecuting and convicting major traffickers.

For the first goal, State exceeded two targets:

1. number of hectares of illicit opium under 

cultivation and 

2. number of prevention summits. 

State did not meet two other targets for the first goal:

1. number of hectares of illicit coca under 

cultivation and 

2. number of hectares of marijuana under 

cultivation. 

Also, State exceeded both targets for the second 

goal:

1. number of countries that ratified the 1988 United 

Nations Drug Convention and

2. number of trained law enforcement personnel. 

For the two performance targets not achieved, State 

provided an explanation that appeared reasonable. 

State reported that political strife and violence 

against eradication authorities in countries such as 

Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru hindered its drug 

eradication efforts. State did not provide specific 

strategies to meet the measures in the future.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future?
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 30 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program 

Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 

2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); United States Customs Service, 

United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

Transportation Transportation reported four performance goals 

related to drug control that were derived from the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy:

1. reduce the current drug use among 12-to 17-

year-olds by 10 percent by the year 2005,

2. reduce the current drug use among 18-year-olds 

and older by 10 percent by the year 2005,

3. reduce the current drug use among 12-to 17-

year-olds by 25 percent by the year 2008, and

4. reduce the current drug use among 18-year-olds 

and older by 25 percent by the year 2008.

The department did not provide a discussion of its 

progress in achieving these performance goals. 

Rather, it reported on two measures that are not 

clearly linked to the four ONDCP goals:

1. the amount of drugs that are seized or destroyed 

at sea and 

2. the seizure rate for cocaine that is shipped 

through the transit zone. 

Transportation did not establish a target for the first 

measure. Transportation reported that it did not 

meet the target of 15 percent for the second 

measure. 

In its combined report and plan, Transportation 

provided an explanation for not meeting the fiscal 

year 2001 performance target for the measure—

seizure rate for cocaine that is shipped through the 

transit zone—that appeared reasonable. It stated 

that it did not meet the target of 15 percent for the 

measure because the previous years’ increase in the 

total flow of cocaine through the transit zone had 

outpaced the increase in the Coast Guard’s drug 

interdiction efforts. Transportation did not provide 

specific strategies for meeting this target in the 

future.

Treasury In its combined performance plan and report, 

Customs reported on the performance goal to reduce 

the quantity of illegal drugs entering the United 

States. Customs exceeded eight of nine measures 

reflecting the thousands of pounds seized, number of 

seizures, and pounds of drugs per seizures for the 

following three drugs: cocaine, marijuana, and 

heroin. Customs reported that it did not meet the 

target for the number of marijuana seizures. 

 

Treasury’s fiscal year 2001 report provided an 

explanation for Customs not achieving the target for 

the number of marijuana seizures. Customs stated 

that, although it did not meet its target for the number 

of marijuana seizures, it seized more pounds of 

marijuana in fiscal year 2001 than in any other year. 

Customs stated it believes that the number of 

seizures dropped because of an overall increase in 

sizes of marijuana loads. Furthermore, it stated that 

the heightened state of alert on the border following 

the events of September 11, 2001, might have 

deterred the entrance into the country of hundreds of 

smaller, personal-sized loads. There is no 

discussion of strategies to meet the unmet measure 

in the future.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future?
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 31 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 4: Table 4: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal 

Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals? 

Justice Justice reports that it expects to continue to improve 

its performance on three performance measures 

under the two goals relating to drug control, which 

are (1) reduction in the supply of drugs in the United 

States, (2) number of dismantled/disrupted PDTOs, 

and (3) reduction in number of dismantled drug 

trafficking organizations that are U.S.-based. 

For the first goal of reducing the supply and use of 

drugs in the United States, Justice plans to establish 

a baseline for the measure—reduction in the supply 

of drugs entering the United States—in fiscal year 

2002. In its plan, Justice developed the fiscal year 

2003 target of reducing the supply of drugs entering 

the U.S. by 5 percent, but notes that the figure may 

be subject to change to reflect the fiscal year 2002 

baseline. 

Pertaining to the second goal of 

dismantling/disrupting major drug trafficking criminal 

enterprises, Justice plans to achieve a 7 percent 

reduction in PDTOs by dismantling/disrupting 45 

PDTOs. For the measure of dismantling drug 

trafficking organizations linked to national PDTOs, 

Justice states that it will identify 250 drug trafficking 

organizations and dismantle 13 of them.

Justice’s discussion of strategies to achieve its fiscal 

year 2003 goals appears reasonably linked to 

achieving its fiscal year 2003 goals. For the goal of 

reducing the supply and use of drugs in the United 

States, Justice states that the nine Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) teams will 

coordinate to develop a national priority target list of 

the most significant drug and money-laundering 

organizations. As drug organizations are dismantled 

and more organizations are identified, the OCDETF 

teams will monitor their progress and modify the 

target list. Also, Justice plans to identify and attack 

the control and communications links that are 

important to PDTOs operations in order to achieve 

the second goal—disrupt and dismantle major drug 

trafficking criminal enterprises. 

State State’s fiscal year 2003 performance plan indicates it 

will report on the same six measures as it did in fiscal 

year 2001 for the two goals aimed at reducing the 

entry of illegal drug in the United States: 

1. reduce foreign cultivation of opium poppies, 

coca, and marijuana and

2. dissolve major DTOs and investigate, prosecute, 

and convict significant narcotics criminals.

The targets for the measures indicate State’s plans 

to further reduce the illegal drug supply by targeting 

drug production and by dismantling major drug 

trafficking organizations (DTOs).

In the fiscal year 2003 plan, State discusses 

strategies that appear reasonable in achieving its 

fiscal year 2003 goals. State reports on what it plans 

to emphasize for fiscal year 2003. Pertaining to the 

first goal—reduce foreign cultivation of opium 

poppies, coca, and marijuana—State plans to focus 

on the rebuilding of Afghanistan in areas such as 

reducing opium poppy cultivation. For the second 

goal—dissolve major DTOs and investigate, 

prosecute, and convict significant narcotics 

criminals—State plans to improve relationships with 

foreign governments’ counternarcotics agencies. For 

example, State expects to dismantle the international 

drug cartels that supply the majority of the drugs 

entering the United States.
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 32 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, U.S. Department of State Performance 

Plan Fiscal Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002); Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); United States Customs Service, United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

Transportation For fiscal year 2003, Transportation plans to report 

on one performance measure relating to the drug 

goal—amount of drugs seized or destroyed at sea. 

Transportation reports that it expects to seize or 

destroy 76 metric tons of drugs (cocaine, marijuana, 

methamphetamine, and heroin) at sea. 

Transportation lists strategies that appear reasonable 

in achieving its fiscal year 2003 performance goal. 

For example, the Coast Guard plans to

1. operate along maritime routes to deter attempts 

to smuggle drugs and

2. finalize an interagency study that focuses on the 

deterrent impact that interdiction has on DTOs.

Treasury Customs reports that it plans to increase the targets 

for the same nine measures reported in fiscal year 

2001 that relate to reducing the amount of illegal 

drugs entering the United States. 

In its combined report and plan, Customs states that 

it anticipates continued increase in maritime and air 

cargo smuggling and seizure activity. Also, Customs 

asserts that, because of increased security at U.S. 

ports of entry, it will be more difficult for traffickers to 

smuggle narcotics into the country which contributes 

to the decrease in seizures. 

Although Customs provides a lengthy discussion of 

the activities it has planned for fiscal year 2003 in the 

area “drug and other enforcement,” the discussion 

emphasizes terrorism prevention and does not 

specifically address strategies related to drug 

control.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals? 
Appendix I

Drug Control

Page 33 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 5: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Drug Control as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports

Sources: Department of Justice, FY 2001 Performance Report & FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of State, U.S. Department of State Program 

Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003 and Performance Report Fiscal Year 

2001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); United States Customs Service, 

United States Customs Service Fiscal Year 2003 President’s Budget Performance Plan and Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of their performance 

data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

Justice Justice’s combined report and plan discusses data 

completeness, reliability, and credibility by 

addressing data verification and validation for each 

performance measure. The Chief of Operations 

Division at DEA validated the targets for the 

measure—number of dismantled or disrupted 

PDTOs by DEA. Also, for the measure of DTOs 

dismantled by the FBI, an FBI field manager 

reviewed and approved data that were entered into 

the system and the data was verified through the 

FBI’s inspection process.

Justice reported one shortcoming which was the 

need to improve its reporting system for the 

measure—number of PDTOs dismantled or 

disrupted by DEA. Justice did not discuss any plans 

to resolve this shortcoming.

State State did not report on the completeness, reliability, 

and credibility of its performance data.

State did not report on shortcomings in its 

performance data.

Transportation Regarding data quality, Transportation reported on 

the completeness, credibility, and reliability of its 

reported data by addressing data verification and 

validation. Data entry software ensures data quality 

and consistency by employing selection lists and 

logic checks. Internal analysis and review of 

published data by external parties help identify 

errors. 

Transportation discussed shortcoming in its 

performance data. It stated that, although data 

verification and validation occurs several times in the 

data reporting process, a small but possible limitation 

to the accuracy of the data could stem from 

duplication and coding errors. Transportation did not 

provide specific steps to minimize this shortcoming.

Treasury Customs reported on the completeness, reliability, 

and credibility of its performance data by discussing 

data verification for each performance measure. For 

example, the measure pertaining to seized narcotics 

is followed by a discussion on data verification. The 

discussion included identifying the Treasury 

Enforcement Communication System as the data 

source and stating that Customs personnel conduct 

periodic data reviews. In addition, Treasury’s fiscal 

year 2001 performance report stated that the report 

meets the standards for reliability established by the 

Office of Management and Budget.

In its report and plan, Customs acknowledged 

shortcomings, but did not discuss steps to minimize 

them. For example, Customs reported that while its 

data can be considered reliable, they can be subject 

to error, such as input errors or duplicative reporting 

not identified by reviewers. In Treasury’s 

performance report, it discussed initiatives to 

improve the quality of performance data. For 

example, Customs conducted its Self Inspections 

Program in fiscal year 2001, with managers 

performing self-assessments of methods, 

procedures, and performance measurements. 
Page 34 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix II

Family Poverty ApendxiI

Table 6: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 

Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

Department of Agriculture For the Food Stamp program, Agriculture’s fiscal 

year 2001 performance report mentions efforts to 

coordinate with other federal agencies, but does not 

specify the agencies. For example, Agriculture 

mentions (1) test projects to improve access to the 

program by combining the Food Stamp and Social 

Security application processes and (2) efforts to 

coordinate with other federal agencies to develop a 

web-based multiprogram eligibility pre-screening 

tool. Agriculture’s report does not discuss 

interagency coordination efforts for the other 

programs we looked at such as Special 

Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants and 

Children (WIC), National School Lunch, School 

Breakfast (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food 

(CACFP), and Summer Food Service (SFSP) 

programs.

Agriculture notes a strategy to coordinate with other 

federal agencies to seek long-term solutions to 

address world hunger and malnutrition but does not 

specify the agencies. Agriculture identifies strategies 

to improve its stewardship of federal nutrition 

assistance programs and mentions its efforts to work 

with state agencies but does not specifically mention 

its coordination efforts with other federal agencies.

Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS)a

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 

within HHS reports it coordinates with the following 

departments: Labor in Welfare-to-Work Partnership 

and Workforce Investment Act efforts, Transportation 

in its Access to Jobs program, Education in providing 

education and training services, and Housing and 

Urban Development in providing housing assistance. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS), a component of HHS that includes family 

poverty programs such as Medicaid and State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 

identifies its coordination efforts with other 

components within HHS, such as with the Centers for 

Disease Control (CDC). The report-plan also 

mentions coordination efforts with states, and other 

private groups and associations but does not provide 

information on collaboration with federal agencies.

See previous column.
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 35 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002); U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor 

Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002); U.S. Department of Labor , United States Department of Labor Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual 

Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

a

The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue a consolidated fiscal year 2001 report or 

fiscal year 2003 performance plan for the entire agency but produced its fiscal year 2001 reports and 

fiscal year 2003 plans as a combined document for each component of the agency.

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

(HUD)

HUD reports it partners with HHS, the Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs (VA), and “a number of agencies” in 

the Interagency Council on the Homeless to address 

homelessness. In addition, HUD attributes its 

success on this objective to the substantial support it 

receives from Labor and HHS in the measure of 

improving employment rates of entry-level job 

seekers in central cities. The Interagency Council on 

the Homeless includes the departments of HHS, 

Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Justice, 

Labor, Defense, Transportation, and VA; and the 

Social Security Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, General Services 

Administration, and the Postmaster General. HUD 

states that the purpose of the council is to minimize 

duplication and improve overall results by 

coordinating federal programs supporting 

homelessness. 

In its plan, HUD describes a number of coordination 

efforts. HUD is a member of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Interagency Workforce 

Investment Act Committee, which brings Labor, HHS, 

and Education together to address the nation’s 

employment issues. HUD states it will also continue 

to be involved in Labor’s Workforce Investment Act 

Interagency Coordinating Committee. HUD reports it 

will collaborate with HHS and Labor in a number of 

initiatives including educating communities, 

organizations, and state and local agencies about 

the Workforce Investment Act and federal welfare 

regulations. Concerning its objective to end 

homelessness, HUD states it is a member of the 

Interagency Council on the Homeless.

Department of Labor 

(Labor)

Labor reports it is a part of the Workforce Excellence 

Network, comprising Education, HHS, and Labor. 

The Workforce Excellence Network conducts two 

major national conferences each year, in which 

Labor is able to “showcase” its best Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) programs. In addition, at DOL’s 

Summit on 21st Century Workforce, the agency 

announced a joint proposal to work with the 

Department of Education on establishing a Job 

Corps distance-learning program. 

Labor states it plans to engage Education, HUD, 

DOT, and Justice for support in its apprenticeship 

program. Labor reports it will continue to be a part of 

the OMB’s Interagency Workforce Investment Act 

Committee, which brings HHS, HUD, Education, and 

Department of State together to develop and refine 

common performance measures to ensure optimal 

service delivery for programs under the WIA. Labor 

plans to be involved with the departments of 

Education and Defense’s Education Activity program 

for Job Corps diploma attainment.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 36 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 7: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 

 Agriculture Agriculture says the numbers in its report for fiscal 

year 2001 are based on projected results because 

states have not reported all of their data. Goals 

include expanding program access and benefit 

delivery for Food and Nutrition Service programs, 

such as Food Stamps and WIC. Agriculture reports 

that it anticipates meeting one goal and one of its six 

performance indicators it established for addressing 

family poverty.

Goals Agriculture anticipates meeting included: 

(1) WIC participation exceeding its target of serving 

7.25 million people by reaching 7.30 million 

participants and (2) increasing assistance to the 

neediest rural communities by surpassing the 7:1 or 

greater ratio of non-empowerment zone and 

enterprise communities (EZ/EC) grants to EZ/EC 

grants invested in EZ/EC communities to a ratio of 

17.77:1. 

Agriculture does not expect to meet targets for five of 

the six performance indicators relating to the goal of 

expanding program access and benefit delivery for 

Agriculture nutrition assistance programs. These 

indicators include increased participation in the 

following programs: Food Stamp Program, National 

School Lunch Program, SBP, CACFP, and SFSP. 

Agriculture reported that its target numbers were 

based on assumptions about economic and other 

factors affecting eligible populations. Agriculture 

identified barriers to Food Stamp Program 

participation such as drawbacks in program policies, 

local agency procedures, and participants’ lack of 

information about eligibility requirements. For 

CACFP, Agriculture attributed shortcomings to the 

lack of growth in meals served and to changes in the 

economy. 

To reach its goals in the future, Agriculture reports it 

plans to continue its work in making access to 

programs easier by reducing reporting requirements 

for working families whose income fluctuates 

frequently, conducting program access reviews, and 

testing to review the program application process. To 

help reach its goals for the SFSP, Agriculture reports 

it will provide various forms of technical assistance 

as well as conduct outreach initiatives.
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 37 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a 

component of HHS, which includes such family 

poverty programs as Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF), Social Services Block Grant, 

Child Care, and Head Start, reported the following 

goals related to family poverty: 

1. improving TANF welfare reform, 

2. maintaining outreach and funding through Social 

Services Block Grant, 

3. increasing child care affordability, 

4. improving child care quality, and 

5. improving Head Start Health Status.

ACF stated that it was not able to report completely 

on its fiscal year 2001 progress on the first three 

goals because it lacked fiscal year 2001 performance 

data for 18 of the 23 performance indicators related 

to those goals. ACF was unable to obtain these data 

due to the time lag in receiving and validating data 

reports from states, localities, and other program 

partners.a

 ACF was, however, able to report that it 

fell short in achieving its targets for the five 

performance indicators related to two of its goals: 

improving child care quality and improving the Head 

Start Health Status program. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS): CMS fully met two, and partially met one and 

did not meet another of its four goals related to family 

poverty. CMS successfully provided linked data files 

for dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid recipients 

to all 56 states and territories and increased the 

number of children enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP 

over its goal of one million to almost 3.5 million. 

CMS partially met its developmental goal of 

increasing the percentage of Medicaid 2-year old 

children who are fully immunized. This goal, being in 

its developmental state, has three main performance 

indicators, all of which set targets to accomplish a 

particular objective by a set date. For one of these 

performance indictors, CMS did not establish all 

targeted baselines, thereby only partially meeting its 

goal. In addition, CMS did not establish the 

feasibility of conducting pilot projects with the states 

to measure, and ultimately reduce Medicaid payment 

error rates.

ACF: ACF provides a reasonable explanation in its 

report-plan for one of its unmet performance 

indicators related to the goal of improving the quality 

of child care—increasing the number of classroom 

teachers with a degree in early childhood, or similar 

training as identified by ACF. It attributes missing this 

target to staff turnover and limited access to training 

and credentialing opportunities in certain parts of the 

country. However, ACF’s report-plan does not 

provide an explanation for missing the other child 

care quality indicator—maintaining the percent of 

Head Start employees who have children in Head 

Start. 

ACF reports that two factors contributed to its failure 

to meet two of its three indicators for the goal of 

improving Head Start Health Status: (1) high student 

turnover rate hinders the students’ receipt of health 

care despite Head Starts’ medical referrals and (2) 

Medicaid’s inability to cover dental and mental health 

treatment for Head Start students prevented them 

from receiving proper care.

In its fiscal year 2001 report-plan ACF reports that 

Head Start is working in conjunction with higher 

education institutions to provide training for teachers. 

In addition, ACF states it sets aside funds for training 

and technical assistance to help local projects meet 

the Head Start program performance standards and 

maintain and improve the quality of local programs. 

Also, Head Start conducts research, demonstration, 

and evaluation activities to test innovative program 

models and to asses program effectiveness. 

However, for its other unmet performance indicators 

under the goal of Head Start Health Status, ACF 

does not provide strategies for meeting the goal in 

the future.

CMS: For the goal that CMS met partially, the reportplan provides justification for its shortcomings. CMS 

states that more time was needed for states to fully 

develop their measurement methodologies because 

of the variations in state reporting cycles for 

immunization data, data problems, and staff and 

resource limitations. CMS discusses time frames for 

the development of each state’s baseline measure 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 38 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

and reporting methodology, but CMS does not 

describe specifically how it intends to achieve its 

targets for this area in the future.

As a general trend among these goals, CMS also 

identified barriers to continual success and outlined 

additional strategies. For example, CMS faces some 

problems because of reporting techniques and 

dependence on states for information as well as 

delays in funding. Strategies for addressing such 

barriers include refocusing efforts on the low income 

Medicare beneficiaries beginning in fiscal year 2002 

with a new performance goal measuring their 

increased of awareness of the Medicare Savings 

Program.

HUD For its performance measures related to family 

poverty, HUD reported it

• met or, based on preliminary data, anticipates 

meeting seven of its performance indicators,

• missed or, based on preliminary data, anticipates 

missing six of its performance indicators, including

1. at least 90 percent of (EZ/ECs) achieve local 

goals in serving homeless persons,

2. at least 90 percent of EZ/ECs achieve local 

goals in providing social services,

3. 154,000 jobs created or retained through 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

and Section 108,

4. 11,080 youths are trained in construction trades 

through Youthbuild,

5. increase by 1 percentage point to 30 percent, 

the share of welfare families that move from 

welfare to work while residing in public housing, 

and

6. increase by 2 percentage points to 34 percent 

the share of welfare families that move from 

welfare to work assisted by tenant-based 

Section 8

• does not have enough data to determine the 

outcome of one of its indicators, and 

• either established or will be establishing a 

baseline for four of its indicators.

Of the six goals HUD did not meet or anticipated not 

meeting in fiscal year 2001, HUD provides 

reasonable explanations such as a lack of 

anticipated funding, external factors such as the 

weakening job markets, and limits on program 

participation because of funding and access to 

programs, among other explanations. 

Strategies for four of its unmet goals are outlined. 

Such strategies include improving technical 

assistance to EZ/EC communities to advise in 

developing completed projects and link them to 

successful communities; and public housing 

authorities have been promoting work through 

earned income disregards, Family Self-Sufficiency 

accounts, and employment-related supportive 

services, among other strategies. The two goals for 

which HUD does not describe strategies are

(1) 154,000 jobs created or retained through CDBG 

and Section 108 and (2) 11,080 youths are trained in 

construction trades through Youthbuild.

HUD states that it will no longer track 14 of the 18 

performance measures we renewed after fiscal year 

2002 or fiscal year 2003 for reasons such as matured 

success, technical difficulties in reporting, to better 

reflect impact, an uncertain effect on outcome 

indicators, and a need for more accurate measures.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 39 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children 

and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).

a

In its comments, ACF stated that as data come available, they are posted to the Web site.

b

DOL labels goals as substantially met if achievement toward that goal was made but not fully attained.

Labor Of its six performance indicators related to family 

poverty, Labor reported it met three, failed to meet 

two, and substantially met one of its goals.b

 The two 

goals Labor reports it did not meet are: (1) of those 

Welfare-to-Work participants placed in unsubsidized 

employment, 66 percent remain in the workforce for 

6 months with 59 percent average earnings increase 

by the second quarter following the placement 

quarter and (2) increase the number of states with 

registered child care apprenticeship programs to 49 

and the percent of new child care apprentices by 20 

percent over fiscal year 2000. For the goal to 

increase its childcare apprentice programs and 

participants, Labor did not increase the number of 

states with apprentice programs but did successfully 

increase the number of new childcare apprentices. 

Labor reported that the number of states with 

apprentice programs did not increase but remained 

at 39. The goal Labor substantially met was to attain 

a 50 percent rate of placement in employment or 

other training activities for 14-18 year-olds in the WIA 

program. For this goal, Labor achieved a rate of 47.4 

percent of youth either employed or in other 

educational or training activities.

For Labor’s unmet goal of retention and wage 

increases among Welfare-to-Work (WtW) 

participants, it reported two contributing factors: 

employment declined in the service and retail 

sectors, both of which were a significant source of 

entry-level placements, and WtW grantees were 

reporting questionable data. Labor identifies 

strategies for addressing the employment needs of 

participants in order to improve the retention rate and 

average earnings increase for WtW participants. 

Such strategies include making retention more 

attractive, magnifying and extending service 

provisions, continuing the Pathways to Advancement 

pilot project, which subsidizes employers, upgrades 

and advances current TANF “alumni,” and validates 

data at the program level.

According to Labor, it was conducting a review of 

childcare grant and program performance and 

therefore did not increase the number of states with 

childcare apprentice programs. Labor revised this 

goal in fiscal year 2002 to expand the apprenticeship 

program into areas where they had not traditionally 

been used. Labor reported that its focus on 

increasing the number of childcare apprentices 

would continue in 2002 but the program results 

would be integrated into its new performance 

measures.

Explanations for the goal substantially met, assisting 

youth in making the transition to work, are 

reasonable because Labor attributes its shortfall to 

(1) preliminary data, as only 42 of the 53 states and 

jurisdictions reported final data and (2) inaccurate 

data, as the data used to complete this measure are 

based on youth who are terminated during the 

program, with only one quarter of data from the WIA 

program. Labor introduced to states a new 

performance data reporting system with WIA, 

causing difficulties in state reporting.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to 

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 40 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 8: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 

Agriculture According to its plan, Agriculture expects to continue 

achieving its goal of program access and benefit 

delivery expansion for its nutrition assistance 

programs in fiscal year 2003 by increasing the target 

numbers from its fiscal year 2001 report. In 

addition, Agriculture is continuing to increase 

assistance to the neediest rural communities by 

increasing the ratio of non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC 

grants invested in EZ/EC communities.

Agriculture’s reported strategies for achieving fiscal 

year 2003 goals generally are a continuation of their 

current efforts. However, the fiscal year 2003 plan 

does identify additional strategies necessary for 

enhancing performance, such as strengthening 

relations with other organizations, seeking additional 

funding, and proposing legislation. To meet its goal 

regarding assisting the neediest rural communities, 

Agriculture identifies the following strategies: using 

special initiatives, such as EZ/EC to reach needy 

areas, encouraging strategic planning at the local 

level, providing enhanced technical assistance, and 

targeting limited federal resources.
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 41 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

HHS ACF’s 2003 report-plan includes performance 

measures for the following goals related to family 

poverty: 

1. improving TANF welfare reform, 

2. maintaining outreach and funding through 

Social Services Block Grant, 

3. increasing child care affordability, 

4. improving child care quality, and 

5. improving Head Start Health Status.

However, for its performance measures related to 

child care affordability, ACF does not identify targets 

for fiscal year 2003.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS): CMS states it will continue to assist states in 

developing state-specific measures of childhood 

immunization. 

As part of a new goal for fiscal year 2003, CMS 

reports it plans to begin working with states on the 

Performance Measurement Partnership Project. 

With this project, CMS states it plans to develop 

evidence-based Medicaid health improvement 

priorities that will include performance measures 

and targets.

CMS discontinues its goal to link Medicaid and 

Medicare files for those dually eligible because it 

was met and further follow-up is not necessary. 

In addition, CMS states it did not yet determine a 

goal for decreasing the number of uninsured 

children through the SCHIP program because it is 

currently reevaluating the goal.

ACF reports that it will continue to use current 

strategies such as providing bonuses to states that 

meet performance targets and helping states to meet 

desired outcomes through improved communication, 

technical assistance, and guidance. In addition, ACF 

is reportedly working on improving its own 

performance through training and improved 

organization, and procedures that will, in turn, give the 

states better resources for meeting their goals.

For its goal of having states develop a baseline and 

methodology for measuring the immunization of 2-

year-old children under Medicaid, CMS discusses time 

frames for the development of each state’s baseline 

measure and reporting methodology, but CMS does 

not describe specific strategies for how it intends to 

achieve its targets for this area.

CMS reports it is working with states to develop a 

strategy for the coordinated use of performance 

measures within and across Medicaid and SCHIP to 

improve health care quality.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 42 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for Children and Families, 

Administration for Children and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance 

Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 2002); U.S. Department of Labor , United States Department of Labor Final Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).

HUD Because HUD made an interim adjustment to its 

fiscal year 2000-2006 strategic plan, which is still in 

draft, the framework for its fiscal year 2003 

performance plan changed from what it reported in 

fiscal year 2001. The new framework introduces 

eight strategic goals, two of which address family 

poverty. HUD’s Goal 3, to “improve the quality of 

public assisted housing and provide more choices 

for its residents,” and Goal 5, to “effectively address 

the challenge of homelessness” introduce seven 

new performance indicators and update four that 

relate to family poverty. Objectives include helping 

families in public and assisted housing make 

progress toward self-sufficiency and becoming 

homeowners, ending chronic homelessness in 10 

years, and helping homeless individuals and 

families move to permanent housing. 

To help meet its fiscal year 2003 performance goal of 

helping families in public and assisted housing make 

progress toward self-sufficiency and becoming 

homeowners, HUD identifies strategies. These 

strategies appear reasonably linked to its goals. For 

example, in its fiscal year 2003 plan, HUD states it will 

focus on expanding participation in the Family SelfSufficiency Program and the Section 8 

homeownership program in order to meet its fiscal 

year 2003 goals. 

HUD does identify two clear strategies for its goal of 

ending chronic homelessness in 10 years: 

(1) streamline HUD programs in order to have more 

flexibility to target resources and (2) increase the focus 

of HUD’s housing resources while increasing 

coordination with other agencies through the 

reauthorization of the Interagency Council on 

Homeless. For its objective of helping homeless 

individuals and families move to permanent housing, 

HUD plans to continue developing a client-level 

reporting system and supporting and enacting other 

programs. In addition, HUD describes increasing 

coordination efforts to provide assistance in tracking 

homeless persons moving through various programs.

Labor Labor reorganized its goals in its fiscal year 2003 

performance plan. Goals include increase 

employment retention rates and earnings of 

individuals under the WIA adult programs, 

strengthen registered apprenticeship system to 

meet the training needs of business and workers by 

increasing apprenticeship programs and 

participants, and increase entrance and retention 

youth registered under the WIA youth program in 

education or employment. 

In the beginning of its fiscal year 2003 Performance 

Plan, Labor lists department-wide means and 

strategies for meeting all of its goals, most of which are 

to continue or improve existing efforts. Following the 

list, Labor describes eight significant new or enhanced 

efforts in fiscal year 2003. Such strategies include 

improving data quality, and providing technical 

assistance to national and regional offices to improve 

the performance accountability system.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 43 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 9: Reliability of Performance Data reported by Agencies Involved in Family Poverty as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

Agriculture According to its fiscal year 2001 performance 

report, Agriculture does not describe its methods for 

reviewing the performance data it receives from 

states for nutrition assistance programs, but states 

that it does review information for consistency and 

completeness. 

At the beginning of Agriculture’s fiscal year 2001 

performance report, it states that all data are “of 

sufficient quality and reliability except where 

otherwise noted in this document.” For the nutrition 

assistance performance indictors, Agriculture states 

that the actual numbers are based on preliminary 

data, which Agriculture defines, as “incomplete 

data .”

For the performance indictor increasing the ratio of 

non-EZ/EC grants to EZ/EC grants invested in 

EZ/EC communities, Agriculture reports that “these 

data are considered to be final and reliable” but 

does not give any indication as to how the data are 

collected, the types of limitations on the data or how 

to minimize them, or the method for assessing the 

data’s reliability.

HHS For TANF and Head Start programs, Administration 

for Children and Families (ACF) reports it has been 

able to automate the data collection process. In 

addition, ACF reports consistency and validity 

regarding its data because of such procedures as 

edits, special data computation runs, and data trend 

analysis. 

Data for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) measures come from state 

reporting systems such as quarterly and annual 

statistical forms. CMS reports built-in quality 

assurance checks, technical consultants, and a 

review of data by CMS personnel.

For program data ACF did not identify as complete, 

reliable, and credible, such as Social Services Block 

Grant, and child care, dependence on states and 

other grantees to provide individual performance 

data makes validation and verification more difficult 

in that data sometimes comes in late or incomplete. 

In some instances, systems and quality control 

problems and technological delays occur. However, 

ACF states it tried to assist states in their ability to 

report through technological assistance and data 

review efforts.

CMS’ report-plan identifies shortcomings in one of 

the four performance indicators, decreasing the 

number of uninsured children by working with states 

to implement SCHIP and by enrolling children in 

Medicaid. CMS stated it would, along with the 

Centers for Disease Control, provide technical 

assistance to help states address data reliability. In 

addition, CMS said it is looking to closely monitor 

data issues that arise with the SCHIP performance 

indicator.
Appendix II

Family Poverty

Page 44 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Children 

and Families: Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 

2002); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fiscal Year 2001 Performance & Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. 

Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, Report on Performance and Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).

HUD HUD reports that the “department has made 

substantial advances in improving the 

completeness, accuracy and reliability of 

performance data.” The report states that the 

readers can rely on the data reported to assess the 

department’s achievements. In addition, HUD 

states it could not report data with complete 

confidence on four of the indicators because the 

data is estimated, based on incomplete data sets. 

HUD’s report does not, however, outline methods 

for verifying the quality of its data.

In the fiscal year 2002 or fiscal year 2003 reports 

performance report, HUD is discontinuing or 

updating the 18 performance indicators that we 

reviewed in its fiscal year 2001 report because of its 

inability to address data reliability issues and the 

unknown connection with the outcome measure, 

among other reasons. For the estimated data, HUD 

states accurate numbers will be reported in the 

fiscal year 2002 performance report if adjustments 

are necessary.

Labor Labor reports on the data quality of each of the 

performance indicators in its “analysis of results” 

section. For example, for its goal of assisting youth 

in making the transition to work, Labor reports that it 

relies on performance data from 53 states and 

jurisdictions. Of the 53 states and jurisdictions, 

Labor reports that 7 of the states submitted data 

that are questionable. 

In its Management and Performance Challenges 

section of the report, Labor states it is limited in its 

ability to control the quality of results data.

Labor acknowledges shortcomings in its data, such 

as the questionable quality of some state data. 

Labor has described steps to resolve the problem, 

such as its proposed validation project to address 

the questionable data from states. Labor reports its 

validation project will create more precise 

programming specification standards for use in 

validating state data. Labor has placed a 

performance and reporting software package on its 

department website to help grantees prepare their 

program reports which will be followed by an 

additional software package to assist in further 

analysis of data quality.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Page 45 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation ApendxiI

Table 10: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 

2001 Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency (OCC)

The report included a section on crosscutting 

coordination efforts. It reported that the OCC works 

closely with the other four federal regulators (the 

Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OTS). The report noted 

that the OCC works with the other federal depository 

regulators the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examinations Council (FFIEC). The FFIEC is an 

interagency group that is empowered to prescribe 

uniform principles, standards, and report forms for 

federal examinations of financial institutions and to 

make recommendations to promote uniformity in the 

supervision of depository institutions. In addition, the 

report stated that the OCC participates in the GPRA 

Interagency Working Group (a group that works on 

issues related to the general goals and objectives 

that cross the programs and activities of federal 

regulatory agencies as well as other general GPRA 

requirements, Basel Committee (a forum for 

international cooperation on matters relating to 

financial institution supervision), Interagency Country 

Exposure Risk Committee (provides an objective 

opinion on the degree of transfer risk inherent in 

cross-border and cross-currency lending by U.S. 

depository institutions), and Shared National Credits 

Program (an interagency effort to perform a uniform 

credit review of depository institutions loans that 

exceed $20 million and are shared by three or more 

depository institutions).

OCC’s 2002 performance plan reported similar 

crosscutting efforts as the OCC performance report. 

It stated that the OCC works with the other federal 

depository institutions regulators through FFIEC, 

Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee, 

Shared National Credit Program, and GPRA 

Interagency Working Group. 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 46 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System 

(Board)

The report did not mention coordinating with the 

other depository institution regulators. 

The plan included a section on Interagency 

Coordination of Cross-cutting Issues. It reported that 

the Board has been working closely with the other 

federal agencies to address programs that transcend 

jurisdictions. It also reported that the Board formally 

coordinates with the other federal depository 

institution regulatory agencies through the Federal 

Financial Examination Council (FFIEC). The report 

stated that the FFIEC also provides uniform 

examiner training and has taken a lead in developing 

standardized software needed for major data 

collection programs to support requirements in the 

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Community 

Reinvestment Act.

 

The plan also reported on the Board’s participation in 

the Government Performance and Results Act 

Interagency Working Group. 

According to the Board’s plan, interagency 

coordination is to be an operational process. 

Moreover, the plan stated that at the most senior 

levels, the Board’s work and plans have been closely 

coordinated with Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC), OCC, and Office of Thrift 

Supervision (OTS).

Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC)

In its performance report, FDICa described the 

various federal regulatory working groups in which it 

has participated: FFIEC, Basel Committee on 

Banking Supervision Interagency Country Exposure 

Risk Committee, Shared National Credit Program 

Joint Agency Task Force on Discrimination in 

Lending, and the Results Act Financial Institutions’ 

Regulatory Working Group.

FDIC’s 2002 plan reported that FDIC works closely 

with the Federal Reserve, OCC, Office of Thrift 

Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union 

Administration. The report noted that FDIC 

participated in the following interagency groups 

related to its supervision and regulation function: 

FFIEC, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 

Interagency Country Exposure Risk Committee, 

Shared National Credit Program, Fraud and Money 

Laundering, the Results Act Financial Institutions 

Regulatory Working Group. 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

(OTS)

The report stated that OTS participates in two 

interagency groups related to crosscutting issues, 

FFIEC and the Results Act Financial Institution 

Regulatory Working Group. 

OTS’ 2002 plan reported similar crosscutting efforts. 

It stated that OTS participates in two interagency 

groups related to crosscutting issues, FFIEC and the 

Results Act Financial Institution Regulatory Working 

Group. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 47 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, Government Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002-2003 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report 

(Washington, D.C.: 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2002 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 

2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, 

D.C.: 2002).

a

We used FDIC’s 2002 performance plan because it is the most recent.

b

Information is from NCUA’s Combined Annual Performance Report 2001 and Initial Annual 

Performance Plan 2003.

National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA)b

The report did not have a specific section outlining 

crosscutting programs. However, NCUA states that it 

will work with “other federal agencies to further its 

goal of increasing the number of expansions into 

investment areas by 20 percent.” (This refers to 

membership expansion for underserved 

communities.)

The plan did not contain a section on crosscutting 

coordination with other agencies. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 48 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 11: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 

OCC OCC reported four performance goals related to the 

supervision and regulation function. They are (1) 

identifying and communicating risks to large and 

mid-size bank management, (2) achieving effective 

compliance with Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) examination 

schedule requirements for community banks, (3) 

continuing to improve corporate application 

processes to achieve maximum efficiency and 

responsiveness, consistent with safety and 

soundness, and (4) effectively responding to bank 

customer complaints and consumer inquiries in a 

timely manner. On the basis of its performance 

report, OCC did not meet one of its goals, 

compliance with FDICIA-mandated examination 

schedule. According to its report, OCC’s goal was to 

examine 95 percent of community banks in 

accordance with the FDICIA mandated schedule. It 

completed 94 percent of the examinations. 

OCC reported that it missed its goal of examining 95 

percent of community banks in accordance with the 

FDICIA mandated schedule because as a result of 

the conversion and migration of data to a new 

examination monitoring and tracking system, minor 

data inaccuracies caused a small percentage of 

examinations to begin shortly after their “official” due 

dates under the FDICIA. Moreover, OCC’s report 

stated that during the first part of the year, data 

integrity validation corrected the issue. 

FDIC FDIC reported that it achieved five of six 

performance goals in the financial regulation 

program: (1) taking prompt supervisory actions to 

address problems; (2) providing technical assistance 

and training on the Community Reinvestment Act 

(CRA), fair lending, and community development; 

(3) responding effectively to written consumer 

complaints and inquiries; (4) conducting 

comprehensive and compliance-only examination in 

accordance with FDIC examination frequency policy; 

(5) and taking prompt supervisory actions and 

monitoring on all institutions rated “4” or “5” for 

compliance. 

The report stated that FDIC did not achieve its goal 

of conducting on-site safety and soundness 

examinations to assess the overall financial condition 

of its banks. Eleven banks due for examination were 

not examined during 2001.

The agency provided a reasonable explanation for 

not achieving one goal. Eleven institutions, which 

were scheduled for examinations, were not examined 

for the following reasons: some institutions merged 

or converted their charters, changes in examination 

intervals because of asset growth or change in 

capital category, and an institution’s information 

system conversion. In addition, the plan provided a 

reasonable strategy for achieving the measures in 

the future, stating that the remaining institutions will 

be examined in the following year. 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 49 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Federal Reserve Boarda The report indicated that the Board generally met its 

goals for 2000 through 2001. The report listed four 

goals related to banking supervision and regulation 

function: (1) promote overall financial stability, 

management, and containment of systemic risk and 

ensure that emerging threats to the health of the 

financial system are identified early and are 

successfully resolved, (2) provide a safe, sound, 

competitive, and accessible banking system through 

comprehensive and effective supervision of U.S. 

banks, bank-holding companies, U.S. operations of 

foreign banking organizations, and related entities, 

(3) improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and 

consistency of the supervisory process while 

reducing the burden on supervised institutions, and 

(4) promote compliance with consumer protection 

statutes and assure fair access to financial services. 

The Board reported that it had met most of its goals 

for 2001. It completed financial institution 

examinations as required by statute and dictated by 

review of supervisory data on the institutions’ 

financial condition, completed reports of 

examinations within established Federal Reserve 

time frames, and processed applications and 

completed compliance examinations within time 

frames it had established. 

The Board did not meet its goal of completing 

depository institution examinations in the required 

time frame. In 2000, 26 examinations of state 

member banks were not conducted in the required 

time frame and approximately 17 examinations were 

not conducted in 2001. The Board provided an 

appropriate reason for the delay—scheduling 

problems with state bank regulatory agencies. 

According to the report, the Board is implementing a 

new scheduling system that will partially resolve 

these problems. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 50 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

OTS The OTS report listed six performance goals in the 

area of supervision and regulation: (1) for all thrift 

institutions scheduled to receive examinations, 

conduct at least 95 percent for safety and 

soundness, 95 percent of compliance, and 90 

percent of holding company, and 90 percent of trust 

and information systems, (2) ensure that 100 percent 

of OTS-regulated thrift institutions operate soundly or 

that OTS has taken appropriate supervisory or 

enforcement action, (3) ensure that at least 99 

percent of OTS examination reports reviewed comply 

with OTS examination policies and procedures, 

(4) ensure that at least 95 percent of OTS-regulated 

thrift institutions rate examination process as 

“satisfactory” or above, (5) ensure that 100 percent of 

OTS-regulated thrift institutions comply with 

consumer protection, fair lending, community 

reinvestment, bank secrecy, and other public policy 

laws and regulations or that OTS has taken 

appropriate supervisory or enforcement action, and 

(6) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift 

institutions are at least “adequately capitalized” or 

operating within an approved capital plan within 150 

days of becoming undercapitalized. The report 

indicated that OTS had met all six goals. 

Since the OTS report indicated that the agency met 

its goals, it did not need to provide strategies on how 

it would achieve any of its missed goals. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 51 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, 

D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report of 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

a

The performance report is biannual rather than annual because the Board uses a biannual budget

NCUA NCUA reported that it generally met its performance 

goals. For strategic goal 1, “Promote a system of 

financially healthy, well-managed federally insured 

credit unions able to withstand economic volatility,” 

NCUA met four out of five outcome goals. 

For strategic goal 2, “Ensure credit unions are 

prepared to safely integrate financial services and 

emerging technology in order to meet the changing 

expectations of their members,” NCUA was unable to 

show if it had met all but one outcome goal because 

data for these goals were not collected prior to 2001. 

According to the report, the only outcome goal met 

under this strategic goal was “Increase the number of 

credit unions offering interactive services by 10 

percent.”

For strategic goal 3, “Create a regulatory 

environment that will facilitate credit union innovation 

to meet member financial service expectations,” the 

report listed that the agency met four of five goals. 

For strategic goal 4, “Enable credit unions to 

leverage their unique place in the American financial 

services sector to make service available to all 

Americans who are not currently being served, 

particularly those of modest means,” the report 

stated that NCUA met all four outcome goals. 

The agency provided reasonable explanations for not 

achieving the goals. 

The agency was unable to meet the outcome goal for 

strategic goal 3, “Increase by 5 percent the number 

of credit union financial services as an indicator of 

service and convenience to members,” because 

there were no data available for measurement. It did 

not provide strategies on how it would achieve the 

goals in the future. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not 

achieving the goal/measure and describe a 

strategy that appears reasonably linked to

achieving the goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 52 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 12: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 

OCC In terms of financial regulation, OCC listed the 

following performance goals related to the supervision 

and regulation function: (1) identify and communicate 

risks to large and midsize bank management, 

(2) achieve effective compliance with FDICIA 

examination schedule requirements for community 

banks, (3) continue to improve corporate application 

processes to achieve maximum efficiency and 

responsiveness, consistent with safety and 

soundness, and (4) effectively respond to bank 

customer complaints and consumer inquiries in a 

timely manner.

The OCC 2002 performance plan did not provide 

strategies that were linked to the specific performance 

goals. However, the plan provided strategies that were 

linked to the strategic goal, ensuring a safe and sound 

national banking system. They included regularly 

monitoring risk and refining “Examiner View”, a bank 

supervision database that allows the collection and 

analysis of systemic and bank specific data and 

regularly reassessing, and changing if necessary, 

supervision strategies to adjust to changing risk and 

other environmental factors. 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 53 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

FDIC In terms of supervision and regulation, the 2002 report 

listed 5 performance goals: (1) conduct on-site safety 

and soundness examinations to assess an FDICsupervised insured depository institution’s overall 

financial condition, management practices and 

policies, and compliance with applicable regulations, 

(2) ensure that prompt supervisory actions are taken 

to address problems identified during examination of 

FDIC-supervised institutions identified as problem 

insured depository institutions, (3) provide effective 

outreach and technical assistance on topics related to 

CRA, fair lending, and community development, 

(4) effectively meet the statutory mandate to 

investigate and respond to consumer complaints about 

FDIC-supervised financial institutions, (5) conduct 

comprehensive and compliance-only examinations in 

accordance with FDIC examination frequency policy, 

and (6) ensure that prompt supervisory actions are 

taken and monitored on all institutions rated a “4” or 

“5” for compliance to address problems identified 

during the examinations.

FDIC’s plan discussed the operational and human 

resource strategies it would use to achieve its stated 

performance goals for fiscal year 2002. The strategies 

appear to be reasonable. 

For the first goal, FDIC stated it would conduct 100 

percent of the required examinations in accordance 

with statutes and FDIC policy. When it identifies 

problems, FDIC may take informal and formal 

enforcement actions against the institution or 

responsible individuals. Staffing and training needs 

are to be continually reviewed.

For the second goal, FDIC stated that it would do a 

follow-up examination within 12 months of completion 

of the prior examination for problem banks.

For the third goal, FDIC stated that it would assess 

participants’ understanding of financial topics after 

attending education workshops at model sites 

featuring FDIC’s adult education training curriculum 

called Money Smart. FDIC will gather and analyze 

post-seminar self-evaluations from these participants 

and will review how they rated the degree to which 

they increased their understanding of personal finance 

topics from the model sites. Also, FDIC is establishing 

a certification training program for its community 

affairs. 

For the fourth goal, FDIC stated that it will respond to 

90 percent of written complaints within time frames 

established by policy. FDIC plans to monitor the 

timeliness of its responses. 

For the fifth goal, FDIC stated that it would conduct the 

required examinations in accordance with statute and 

FDIC policy. FDIC will analyze examination-related 

data collected in the System of Uniform Reporting of 

Compliance and CRA Examination to determine 

whether it achieved targeted performance levels 

during the reporting period. 

For the sixth goal, FDIC stated that it would conduct a 

follow-up examination or related activity within 12 

months of the date of a formal enforcement action to 

confirm that the institution was complying with the 

action. FDIC is enhancing its compliance examination 

process to focus on the effectiveness of the financial 

institution compliance program’s management. This 

change will add value to the examination process but 

will necessitate additional training of examination staff. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 54 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Federal Reserve Board For the supervision and regulation function, the 

Board’s plan listed only one goal: promote a safe, 

sound, competitive, and accessible banking system 

and stable financial markets. The Board report 

outlined five objectives for the goal for 2002 through 

2003: (1) provide comprehensive and effective 

supervision of U.S. banks, bank-holding companies, 

U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, and 

related entities, (2) promote overall financial stability, 

manage and contain systemic risk, and ensure that 

emerging financial crises are identified early and 

successfully resolved, (3) improve efficiency and 

effectiveness and reduce the burden on supervised 

institutions, (4) promote equal access to banking 

services, and (5) administer and ensure compliance 

with consumer protection statutes relating to 

consumer financial transactions. 

The Board’s plan discussed strategies for meeting its 

planned objectives. These strategies appear to be 

reasonable.

For the first objective, the Board intends to focus on 

the areas of highest risk, promote sound risk 

management practices, understand and 

accommodate the effects of financial innovation and 

technology, improve international banking and 

supervisory practices, and refine and strengthen the 

foreign bank organizations program. 

For the second objective, the Board plans to maintain 

adequate expertise and involvement through a 

consistent emphasis on identifying its training needs 

and developing suitable courses and improve 

preparedness by developing and implementing 

policies and procedures that ensure the Board retains 

the flexibility necessary to respond to emerging 

problems. 

For the third objective, the Board plans to conduct 

seamless supervision of state-chartered banks 

through ongoing and improved coordination with state 

and federal bank regulators; remove unnecessary or 

ineffective policies and procedures, consistent with 

safety and soundness of banking organizations, 

harness benefits of technology; improve employment 

of resources; and maintain staff with adequate 

experience and skills. 

For the fourth and fifth objectives, the Board plans to 

support and oversee the Reserve banks’ supervisory 

efforts to ensure that compliance is fully and fairly 

enforced, implement a risk-focused compliance 

examination component that will reduce the regulatory 

burden on state-chartered banks without 

compromising the overall effectiveness of the 

consumer compliance supervision program, and 

review bank and bank-holding company applications 

for adverse CRA, privacy, and compliance issues.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 55 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

OTS OTS is designed to maintain a safe and sound thrift 

industry that meets its responsibilities. Its 2002 

performance plan listed four performance goals: 

(1) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift 

institutions operate soundly or that OTS has taken 

appropriate supervisory or enforcement action, 

(2) ensure that at least 95 percent of OTS-regulated 

thrift institutions rate the value of the examination 

process as “satisfactory” or above, (3) ensure that 100 

percent of OTS-regulated thrift institutions comply with 

consumer protection, fair lending, community 

reinvestment, bank secrecy, and other public policy 

laws and regulations or that OTS has taken 

appropriate supervisory or enforcement action, and 

(4) ensure that 100 percent of OTS-regulated thrift 

institutions are at least “adequately capitalized,” are 

under a prompt corrective action directive, or are 

recapitalized to the “adequately capitalized” level or 

operating within an approved capital plan within 150 

days of becoming undercapitalized.

To actively support the thrift industry’s efforts to 

expand the full range of housing, the report outlined 

two performance goals to (1) provide educational and 

technical assistance to industry representatives, the 

OTS examination staff, and other relevant parties on 

community development issues and needs and 

opportunities and (2) promote and help facilitate 

partnerships among financial institutions, community 

organizations, and others as a means of improving the 

availability of and access to credit and financial 

services. 

The OTS 2002 performance plan provided general 

strategies for achieving annual performance goals 

related to the supervision and regulation function. 

However, the strategies in the plan were not linked to 

the specific performance goals. For example, the plan 

included the following strategies: (1) ensure that the 

supervisory corrective strategies for 100% of the high 

risk institutions are presented at least semi-annually to 

the OTS Director, Deputy Director and other senior 

staff in Washington; (2) creatively and effectively deal 

with problem thrift institutions; and (3) review the 

examination follow-up and corrective action process 

for greater efficiency and effectiveness, as well as 

more consistency among regions.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 56 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

NCUA NCUA reported that it generally met its performance 

goals. To promote a system of financially healthy, wellmanaged federally insured credit unions able to 

withstand economic volatility, NCUA plan listed the 

following performance goals: (1) review one-third of its 

regulations annually for needed changes, (2) complete 

the program review phase of the transition to a riskfocused examination process, (3) monitor and assess 

the percentage of federally insured credit unions with 

long-standing unresolved problems that threaten their 

safety and soundness, and (4) ensure that NCUA’s 

communication processes, including examinations, 

serve as an effective means to provide credit unions 

with critical and other valuable information.

To facilitate credit unions’ ability to safely integrate 

financial services and emerging technology in order to 

meet the changing expectations of their members, the 

NCUA plan outlined the following performance goals: 

(1) enhance the training program for NCUA and State 

Supervisory Authority Information Systems and 

Technology Subject Matter Examiners and 

(2) enhance the credit union community’s use and 

understanding of technology plans, due diligence 

expectations, and best practices.

To create a regulatory environment that will facilitate 

innovations in credit unions to meet members’ 

financial service expectations, the NCUA plan listed 

three performance goals: (1) review one-third of NCUA 

regulations annually for needed changes, (2) review 

examination and supervision procedures to ensure 

that they are efficient, effective, flexible and helpful in a 

competitive environment yet maintain safety and 

soundness, and (3) create a regulatory environment 

that allows credit unions to enhance financial services 

by reducing regulatory barriers and sharing 

information and legislative efforts.

The NCUA report described how NCUA will meet 

some of its goals, but it did not provide a description 

for all the goals. 

To ensure NCUA’s communication processes, 

including examinations, serve as an effective means to 

provide credit unions with critical and other valuable 

information, NCUA will measure satisfaction by a 4.4 

average rating on the NCUA Examination Survey.

To enhance the training program for NCUA Information 

Systems and Technology Subject Matter Examiners, 

NCUA will provide training to all NCUA information 

systems and technology subject matter examiners. 

To review one-third of NCUA regulations annually for 

needed changes, NCUA will complete the review of 

the regulations identified by the Office of General 

Counsel, the Office of Examination and Insurance, and 

the regional offices for 2003.

To implement a review process of the successes and 

difficulties encountered by new charters and identify 

common themes or reasons for success and failure, 

NCUA will implement a review process to analyze the 

success or failure of a credit union meeting the 

definition of “new” in conjunction with the Office of 

Examination and Insurance’s risk management 

postmortem review process. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 57 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government Performance and Results Act Biennial Performance Plan, 2002-2003 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 2002 Annual Performance Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of the Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

(Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of the Treasury, Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 for the Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2001 and 

Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

To enable credit unions to leverage their unique place 

in the American financial system to extend the 

availability of services to all who seek them, while 

encouraging and recognizing the historical emphasis 

credit unions have placed on serving those of modest 

means, the NCUA plan (1) expands the availability of 

financial services, (2) implements a process to identify 

emerging demographic trends and share this 

information, and (3) implements a review process of 

the success and difficulties encountered by new 

charters.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make in 

fiscal year 2003? 

Do the agencies provide strategies that are 

reasonably linked to achieving their fiscal year 

2003 goals? 
Appendix III

Financial Institution Regulation

Page 58 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 13: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Financial Institution Regulation as Discussed in 

Their Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Government Performance and Results Act Performance Report, 2000-2001 (Washington, D.C.: April 2002); Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, 2001 Program Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Washington, 

D.C.: 2002); Department of Treasury, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 for the Office of Thrift Supervision (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Performance Report of 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002); Office of Thrift Supervision, Performance Report of Fiscal Year 2001 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

OCC The report commented that the data had 

reasonable accuracy. The data were considered 

accurate for the following performance 

measurements: the percentage of bank 

examinations conducted as scheduled, percentage 

of regulations and handbooks drafted that 

incorporated plain language criteria, and 

percentage of corporate applications processed on 

time. An independent reviewer periodically 

compares samples of large and midsize bank 

examination reports to the system data to ensure 

accuracy. 

The report did not comment on any shortcomings in 

the data used to measure the results for the 

supervision and regulation function. 

FDIC The report did not comment on the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of the FDIC data or include 

a discussion of the standards and methods used to 

assess the data quality. 

The report did not comment on any potential 

shortcomings related to the data on the supervision 

and regulation function.

Federal Reserve Board The report did not comment on the completeness, 

reliability, and credibility of the Board’s data or 

include a discussion of the standards and methods 

used to assess the data quality.

The report did not comment on any potential 

shortcomings related to the data on the supervision 

and regulation function presented in the report.

OTS The report commented that the performance data 

used in the report had reasonable accuracy. The 

report stated that the performance measure data 

met the accurate and auditable standards. 

The report did not comment on any potential 

shortcomings related to the data on the supervision 

and regulation function.

NCUA Although the report did not comment on the 

completeness and reliability of data, it did include a 

discussion of the standards and methods used to 

assess data quality. Data integrity is maintained 

through multilayered processes that include the 

continuous training of staff, the use of software 

controls and screen logic for error prevention, data 

integrity analysis on all reports, reviews by senior 

staff of all reports, and the maintenance of strict 

system security controls.

The report did not comment on any potential 

shortcomings related to the data on the supervision 

and regulation function.
Page 59 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix IV

Public Health Systems ApendxiIV

Table 14: Coordination Efforts among Agencies Involved in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal Year 2001 

Performance Reports and Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?

The Department of Health 

and Human Services 

(HHS)

Within HHS, there are five components that have 

activities related to the prevention of infectious 

diseases in the United States.

Within HHS, there are five components that have 

activities related to the prevention of infectious 

diseases in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC)a

: According to its combined report and plan, 

CDC coordinated with several agencies on issues 

pertaining to public health systems. For example, in 

its mission to protect the public from infectious 

disease threats, CDC reported that it collaborated 

with the Department of Agriculture and the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) on food safety programs. 

For the immunization objectives, CDC reported that it 

partnered with the Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services (CMS), FDA, and the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) among others. To develop 

new diagnostic and treatment tools and better 

vaccines for tuberculosis, CDC reported working with 

NIH and FDA.

CDC: CDC does not distinguish between its 

reported and planned coordination efforts. 

CMSb: According to its combined report and plan, 

CMS worked with other agencies within and outside 

of HHS on various issues. For example, CMS 

worked with CDC to increase the rate of influenza 

and pneumococcal vaccination among Medicare 

beneficiaries. Also, CMS reported working with 

states, CDC, and the American Public Human 

Services Association to develop strategies for the 

goal to increase the percentage of fully immunized 2-

year-old children under Medicaid.

CMS: CMS does not distinguish between its 

reported and planned coordination efforts. 
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 60 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 

2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 

2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 

Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 

Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).

a

CDC issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

b

CMS issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

c

FDA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

FDAc: The combined report and plan provided a 

discussion on FDA coordination efforts with other 

federal agencies in the prevention of infectious 

diseases. FDA’s combined report and plan reported 

that its scientists coordinate with various national, 

international, and interagency organizations such as 

the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the 

World Health Organization to develop vaccine policy. 

Also, FDA stated that it worked with CDC and 

Agriculture to establish the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System to determine what 

foodborne pathogens develop resistance to drug 

treatment. Through coordination with CDC and 

Agriculture, FDA developed an improved food safety 

surveillance program called FoodNet.

FDA: FDA does not distinguish between its reported 

and planned coordination efforts.

HRSAd: HRSA’s combined report and plan 

discussed coordination efforts with CDC pertaining 

to disease prevention and health promotion activities, 

including immunization efforts.

HRSA: HRSA does not distinguish between its 

reported and planned coordination efforts.

NIHe: NIH’s combined report and plan discussed 

coordination with other agencies within HHS, such as 

FDA, CDC, and the Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality. The combined performance plan and 

report did not provide specific information on how 

NIH coordinates with other entities on efforts related 

to public health systems.

NIH: NIH does not distinguish between its reported 

and planned coordination efforts. 

Agriculture Agriculture reported that it coordinated with HHS and 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

regarding the goal to protect the public health by 

reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses. 

However, Agriculture did not discuss specific 

coordination efforts with HHS or EPA related to 

protecting the public health.

In the plan, Agriculture reported that it intends to 

collaborate with HHS and EPA the same way as it did 

in fiscal year 2001.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program were discussed in their fiscal year 2001 

performance reports?

What types of coordination among the relevant 

agencies associated with each crosscutting 

program are discussed in their fiscal year 2003 

performance plans?
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 61 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

d

HRSA issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

e

NIH issued a consolidated fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance 

plan.

Table 15: Agencies’ Reported Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Reports

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not achieving 

the goal/measure and describe a strategy that 

appears reasonably linked to achieving the 

goal/measure in the future? 

HHS CDC: CDC reported that it has achieved 25 of the 

39 measures, did not meet 3 of the measures, and 

did not have data to report on 11 of the measures for 

the goals relating to the prevention of infectious 

diseases. CDC discussed the following 

performance goals that related to public health 

systems:

1. improve epidemiological and laboratory 

capacity to recognize, respond to, and monitor 

infectious diseases,

2. protect the American people from priority 

infectious diseases,

3. apply scientific findings to prevent and control 

infectious diseases,

4. reduce the number of indigenous cases of 

vaccine-preventable diseases,

5. ensure that 2-year-olds are appropriately 

vaccinated,

6. reduce the number of cases of HIV infection 

and AIDS by implementing HIV prevention 

programs,

7. increase the capacity of community-based 

organizations providing HIV prevention services 

to persons of color,

8. reduce the percentage of HIV/AIDS-related risk 

behaviors among school-aged youth through 

dissemination of HIV prevention education 

programs,

9. strengthen the ability to obtain and disseminate 

extramural research findings to partners, public 

health practitioners, and the public through a 

prevention research communications program, 

and

10. increase input from the external scientific 

community on extramural prevention research. 

CDC: CDC provided explanations for not meeting its 

measures that appeared reasonable. For the fourth 

goal, CDC reported that full vaccination for DiphtheriaTetanus-Pertussis is dependent on the varying states’ 

requirements for the four-dose vaccination schedule, 

which may have resulted in the slower increase in 

coverage. For the ninth goal, CDC reported that an 

assessment was not completed due to the 

reevaluation of communication strategies and targets 

by new program leadership. For 11 of the 

performance measures, CDC did not report any data 

at the time of the report’s issuance. In addition, CDC 

did not discuss strategies to meet the unmet goals in 

the future.
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 62 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

CMS: CMS reported on two performance goals: 

(1) increase the percentage of Medicare 

beneficiaries who are 65 years and older and 

receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations 

and (2) increase the percentage of Medicaid 

children aged 2 years who are fully immunized.b

 For 

the first goal, CMS’s report did not include data 

concerning the goal of vaccinating 72 percent of 

Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older for 

influenza and 63 percent for pneumococcal 

infections in fiscal year 2001. CMS stated that the 

data would be available next year. For the second 

goal, CMS reported that it established a series of 

targets for states to achieve within the phase-in 

process to accomplish the goal—to increase the 

percentage of Medicaid children who are fully 

immunized.

CMS: CMS did not report on the performance results 

of its first goal. For the second goal that CMS met 

partially, CMS explains that more time was needed for 

states to fully develop their measurement 

methodologies because of the variations in state 

reporting cycles for immunization data, data problems, 

and staff and resource limitations. CMS discusses 

time frames for the development of each state’s 

baseline measure and reporting methodology, but 

CMS does not describe specifically how it intends to 

achieve its targets for this area in the future.

FDA: Relating to food safety, FDA reported that it 

met two of the six performance goals: (1) to achieve 

adoption of the Food Code by at least one state 

agency in 33 states and (2) to assure that 

inspections of domestic food establishments 

indicate that more than 90 percent of the 

establishments conform with FDA requirements. 

FDA did not meet targets for the following four 

performance goals: 

1. to inspect 90 percent of high-risk domestic food 

establishments each year, 

2. to increase the number of import exams on food 

products,

3. to increase the number of audits and 

assessments of foreign food safety systems of 

high volume exporters to the United States, and 

4. to maintain the current level of monitoring for 

pesticides and environmental contaminants in 

foods through analysis of a targeted cohort of 

8,000 samples.

FDA: FDA provided a reasonable explanation for why 

three of the four goals were not met. For example, for 

the unmet goal to inspect 90 percent of high-risk 

domestic food establishments each year, FDA asserts 

that the goal was missed because the agency 

purposefully diverted resources for these inspections 

to focus on an even greater threat of bovine 

spongiform encephalopathyc

 that was breaking out in 

Europe at the time. Also, for the unmet goal to 

increase the number of exams on imported food 

products, FDA reported that it established a new goal 

starting fiscal year 2002 that will be more indicative of 

the effort to reduce health risks at the border. The 

agency reported that the reallocation of resources to 

other issues contributed to not meeting the goal of 

increasing the number of audits of foreign food safety 

systems of main exporters to the United States. FDA 

did not provide an explanation as to why it did not 

achieve the fourth unmet performance goal—to 

maintain the current level of monitoring for pesticides 

and environmental contaminants in foods through 

analysis of a targeted cohort of 8,000 samples. FDA 

provided no discussion of strategies for how it would 

meet the unmet goals in the future.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not achieving 

the goal/measure and describe a strategy that 

appears reasonably linked to achieving the 

goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 63 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

HRSA: HRSA reported that it established measures 

for two performance goals related to improving 

public health and health care systems under the 

objective to promote AIDS education and training of 

the public health and health care workforce. The 

two performance goals are increase proportion of 

the national AIDS education and training centers 

(AETC) training interventions provided to minority 

health care providers and increase the number of 

minority health care and social service providers 

who receive training in AETCs. HRSA did not report 

performance data for these goals. For the first goal, 

HRSA indicated that the fiscal year 2001 

performance data would be available in February 

2003. For the second goal, HRSA did not report 

fiscal year 2001 performance data. However, it 

noted that this measure is to be deleted.

HRSA: HRSA did not report on the performance 

results of the goals.

NIH: NIH reported on one goal that pertained to the 

prevention of infectious disease—develop new or 

improved approaches for preventing or delaying the 

onset or progression of disease and disability. 

According to the combined report and plan, the 

fiscal year 2001 measure for this goal was the 

progress in developing new or improved approaches 

for preventing or delaying the onset of diseases and 

disabilities. NIH reported that the measure for the 

goal was substantially exceeded. NIH reported 127 

scientific advances that support the goal. For 

example, NIH stated that recombinant DNA 

technology and naked DNA are now used to 

generate new vaccines. Vaccines for diseases such 

as Ebola, tuberculosis, and AIDS are being 

produced and a more effective tuberculosis vaccine 

is under development.

NIH: Not applicable.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not achieving 

the goal/measure and describe a strategy that 

appears reasonably linked to achieving the 

goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 64 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 

2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 

2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 

Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 

Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002).

a

States have varying requirements for the four-dose vaccine schedule for Diphtheria-TetanusPertussis.

b

According to CMS’s fiscal year 2001 performance report and fiscal year 2003 performance plan, the 

term “fully immunized” is used to describe the “complete series of vaccinations in the first two years of 

life. . .to prevent certain diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, 

pertussis, and meningitis.”

c

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a chronic, degenerative disorder affecting the central nervous 

system of cattle and is known as “Mad Cow Disease.”

Agriculture Agriculture reported on three performance goals 

related to protecting the public health by reducing 

the incidence of foodborne hazards:

1. provide leadership towards the creation and 

utilization of risk assessment capacity for meat, 

poultry, and egg products that is supported by 

the latest research and technology, 

2. create a coordinated national and international 

food safety risk management system to ensure 

the safety of U.S. meat and poultry products 

from farm to table, and

3. conduct a comprehensive national and 

international communication program that is an 

open exchange of information and opinions 

about food safety risks.

Agriculture reported that it achieved six of seven 

performance targets under these three performance 

goals. For example, the actual performance of 150 

million for the measure—number of people reached 

with food safety information through media stories, 

circulation reports, visiting Agriculture’s Food Safety 

and Inspection Service Web site, and Agriculture 

Meat & Poultry Hotline calls—surpassed the target 

of 87 million in fiscal year 2001. The department 

reported that it did not achieve the target for the 

measure prevalence of salmonella on broiler 

chickens (percentage) which is under the 

performance goal to create a coordinated food 

safety risk management system to ensure the safety 

of meat and poultry products.

In its report, Agriculture provides a reasonable 

explanation for not achieving the performance target 

for the measure to reduce the prevalence of 

Salmonella on broiler chickens (percentage). 

Agriculture suggests that there may be data problems 

due to random sampling of plants to check for 

prevalence of salmonella on broiler chickens. 

Agriculture said it is giving serious consideration to 

increasing its activities to include not only random 

sampling, but also sampling when there is an 

indication that problems exist in a plant. Agriculture 

said it also was giving serious consideration to deleting 

this indicator, as additional sampling results would 

skew the salmonella prevalence targets. However, it 

did not state any strategies to achieve the unmet goal 

in the future.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress in fiscal year 2001 did the 

respective agencies make toward achieving the 

goals and measures they established for each 

program area? 

If an agency did not achieve a fiscal year 2001 

performance goal or measure, does the agency 

provide a reasonable explanation for not achieving 

the goal/measure and describe a strategy that 

appears reasonably linked to achieving the 

goal/measure in the future? 
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 65 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 16: Agencies’ Expected Progress and Strategies for Achieving Goals in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their 

Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plans

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003?

Do the agencies provide strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals?

HHS CDC: For fiscal year 2003, CDC plans to report on 

generally its goals and measures from fiscal year 

2001 that pertain to prevention of infectious 

diseases with updated targets. For example, the 

performance measure to monitor influenza viruses 

in domestic and global sites in order to improve 

detection of viruses has projected to monitor 900 

sites for fiscal year 2003, which is an increase from 

the fiscal year 2001 target of 514. CDC developed a 

new goal in fiscal year 2002 that is to conduct 

research to identify and assess community-based 

prevention interventions.

CDC: CDC provides strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to achieving its goals for fiscal year 

2003. For example, pertaining to the goal to 

strengthen epidemiological and laboratory capacity to 

recognize, respond to, and monitor infectious 

diseases, CDC plans to maintain and improve the U.S. 

Sentinel Physician surveillance system in order to 

continue to monitor influenza viruses in the United 

States. CDC reports that maintaining the surveillance 

system is a priority because it is the primary source for 

measuring the impact of the virus.

CMS: In CMS’s fiscal year 2003 plan, it has 

increased its performance targets for its two 

performance goals that pertain to vaccinating elderly 

Medicare beneficiaries and children who are under 

Medicaid. For its first goal—vaccinating Medicare 

beneficiaries aged 65 years and older for influenza 

and pneumococcal infections—the targets for fiscal 

year 2003 are 72.5 percent and 69 percent, 

respectively. For its second goal, CMS plans to 

have all states develop their own baselines and 

methodologies for measuring immunization rates for 

2-year-old children who are under Medicaid.

CMS: For its first goal of achieving particular 

immunization rates for Medicare beneficiaries, CMS 

discusses strategies, including working in 

collaboration with providers, community groups, and 

other interested partners to design and implement 

immunization quality improvement projects. For 

example, they report the most effective strategy for 

achieving higher vaccinations is the implementation by 

medical facilities of standing orders—i.e., the use of a 

protocol by non-physician personnel to vaccinate 

Medicare beneficiaries. For its second goal of having 

states develop a baseline and methodology for 

measuring the immunization of 2-year-old children 

under Medicaid, CMS discusses time frames for the 

development of each state’s baseline measure and 

reporting methodology, but CMS does not describe 

specifically how it intends to achieve its targets for this 

area.
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 66 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

FDA: FDA plans to report on five goals related to 

the strategic goal of reducing the health risks by 

preventing exposure to foodborne hazards. The five 

goals include

1. achieve adoption of the Food Codea by 33 

states, 

2. inspect 95 percent of high-risk domestic food 

establishments each year,

3. increase the count of physical exams by 100 

percent to 48,000 exams and conduct sample 

analyses on products,

4. improve the productivity at 45 additional ports 

through training, and 

5. maintain the current level of monitoring for 

pesticides and environmental contaminants in 

foods through analysis of a targeted 8,000 

samples. 

FDA: FDA’s strategies appear reasonably linked to 

achieving the strategic goal of reducing health risks 

associated with food products by preventing human 

exposure to hazards. For example, one of the 

prevention strategies states that FDA will be working 

with states and the food industry to develop and 

implement food production and preventive control 

systems that are appropriate to specific product 

hazard combinations and to establish regular 

processes and systems to more effectively and 

efficiently monitor the food supply.

NIH: For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NIH developed 

two subgoals for the goal to develop new or 

improved approaches for preventing or delaying the 

onset or progression of disease and disability. The 

two subgoals are to (1) identify modifiable risk 

factors for disease/disability and (2) identify, 

develop, and test new/improved medications for the 

prevention of disease/disability. For each of the two 

subgoals, NIH reports on identical performance 

measure that will assess the status of achieving the 

subgoals—annual milestones that include scientific 

advances and discoveries. NIH does not report 

targets for fiscal year 2003 for this measure.

NIH: NIH does not discuss the strategies it will use to 

achieve the goals.

HRSA: HRSA’s plan will report on the same goal 

related to improving public health and health care 

systems that it reported on in fiscal year 2001—

increase proportion of AETC training interventions 

provided to minority health care providers. HRSA 

plans to drop the goal to increase the number of 

minority health care and social service providers 

who receive training in AETCs because measuring 

the percentage of training interventions provided to 

minority health providers was determined to be a 

more accurate and appropriate method to measure 

the program’s progress in training health care 

providers. According to HRSA’s plan, it will increase 

the proportion of AETCs provided to minority health 

care providers to 41 percent in fiscal year 2003 

compared to the targeted 40 percent in fiscal year 

2001.

HRSA: HRSA’s plan does not discuss the strategies it 

will use to achieve the goal.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003?

Do the agencies provide strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals?
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 67 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 

2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 

2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 

Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 

Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

a

According to FDA, the Food Code is a document that regulatory agencies use as a reference for 

overseeing food safety in establishments such as restaurants and grocery stores. The Food Code is 

not a federal law but can be adopted by any agency at any level of government.

Agriculture In the fiscal year 2003 plan, Agriculture will report on 

the same three performance goals related to 

reducing the prevalence of foodborne illnesses as in 

fiscal year 2001:

1. provide leadership towards the creation and 

utilization of risk assessment for meat, poultry, 

and egg products, 

2. create a coordinated national and international 

food safety risk management system to ensure 

safety of U.S. meat and poultry, and

3. conduct a comprehensive national and 

international communication program to serve 

as a medium of exchanging information about 

food safety.

Agriculture’s plan provides strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to achieving each performance goal. 

For example, Agriculture reports that its performance 

goal to create a coordinated national and international 

food safety risk management system to ensure safety 

of U.S. meat and poultry has a set of outlined 

strategies to follow in order to accomplish the goal, 

including

1. develop national performance standards for 

ready-to-eat meat and poultry items,

2. ensure food safety requirements are followed by 

monitoring slaughter and process plants, and

3. increase reviews of foreign inspection systems to 

ensure the safety of imported meat, poultry, and 

egg products.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

What progress did the agencies expect to make 

in fiscal year 2003?

Do the agencies provide strategies that appear 

reasonably linked to achieving fiscal year 2003 

goals?
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 68 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Table 17: Reliability of Performance Data Reported by Agencies Involved in Public Health Systems as Discussed in Their Fiscal 

Year 2001 Performance Reports

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 

HHS CDC: CDC’s combined report and plan provides 

discussions of data completeness, reliability, and 

credibility by addressing data verification and 

validation for each data source corresponding to 

each goal. For example, the goal to utilize scientific 

findings to prevent and control infectious diseases is 

followed by a discussion on verification of the data. 

The discussion includes (1) identifying that states 

are the sources of data, (2) conducting regular visits 

and progress reviews in order to verify performance 

of the goal, and (3) listing data systems utilized for 

verification. Also, CDC stated that it had 85 percent 

completeness in reporting the diagnosed AIDS 

cases for the performance goal to reduce the 

number of cases of HIV infection and AIDS by 

implementing HIV prevention programs. For all the 

performance goals, CDC’s combined report and 

plan discusses the source of data and includes an 

explanation of the data systems utilized by CDC. 

CDC: While CDC acknowledged shortcomings, it 

did not discuss steps to minimize them. For 

example, CDC recognizes the 85 percent 

completeness in reporting diagnosed AIDS cases. 

It attributes this lack of completeness to the 

variation in reporting of the data by states.

CMS: In CMS’s plan and report, it includes a 

discussion of data reliability and verification for each 

performance goal.

CMS: CMS acknowledged shortcomings in its 

performance data and sometimes discusses steps 

to minimize these shortcomings. Data verification 

and validation for immunization will depend on each 

state’s methodology for data collection. Also, CMS 

reports that immunization coverage levels will not 

be directly comparable across the states because of 

the different reporting and data collection 

methodologies used by the states, but did not report 

steps to minimize the shortcomings in the future. 

CMS states that a key part of the technical 

assistance provided by CMS and CDC includes 

helping state address data reliability.
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 69 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

NIH: NIH’s progress toward meeting this goal has 

been assessed by a working group of the Advisory 

Committee to the Director (ACD). The GRPA 

Assessment Working Group was composed of 

members of the ACD, the NIH’s Council of Public 

Representatives, and selected members of the 

Institutes and Centers (ICs) national advisory 

councils. The assessment of NIH’s research was 

based on data provided by the ICs that describes 

the new findings and theories forthcoming from the 

research that NIH conducts and supports. Key 

references were provided for all science advances, 

science capsules, and stories of discovery. NIH 

also provided copies of full articles to the 

assessment working group whenever requested.

NIH: NIH did not report on shortcomings related to 

data quality.

FDA: FDA discussed aspects of the quality of its 

performance data. For example, FDA stated that it 

developed FoodNet to improve food safety 

surveillance. FDA asserted that the FoodNet sites 

provide much better data on the number of 

foodborne illnesses and trends in terms of the types 

of contaminants that are causing these illnesses. In 

2002, when the data will be sufficient in volume and 

quality to establish baselines against which to 

measure changes in foodborne illnesses, FDA will 

be in a better position to establish broad-scope 

outcome goals that are essential to effective 

performance planning.

FDA: FDA acknowledged shortcomings and 

addressed steps to minimize them. It stated that 

the public health data systems are not currently 

adequate to provide accurate and comprehensive 

baseline data needed to draw direct relationships 

between FDA’s regulatory activities and changes in 

the number and types of foodborne illnesses that 

occur annually in the United States. FDA reported 

the need for improved data on food-related 

illnesses. Through coordination with the CDC and 

Agriculture, FDA developed an improved food safety 

surveillance program called FoodNet.

HRSA: HRSA reported that data from the HIV/AIDS 

Bureau comes from grantees who receive funding 

from Titles I, II, III, or IV. It reports that grantees 

complete the Ryan White CARE Act Data Report 

according to their preferred format. Then the data 

are sent to the Office of Science and Epidemiology 

so its staff members can edit and screen the data 

for accuracy.

HRSA: HRSA reported on two data limitations 

related to the HIV/AIDS data collection efforts and 

provided a discussion on how to minimize these 

limitations. First, because the data are reported in 

the aggregate, the types of questions that can be 

answered using the data are limited. Also, the 

reporting system that holds the data contains 

duplicate data about individuals that prevents 

accurate conclusions being made. To minimize 

these data limitations, HRSA reports allowing 

grantees the option to participate in a client-level 

reporting system that will address the concern of 

relationship across variables for the individual 

clients.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Appendix IV

Public Health Systems

Page 70 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan FY 

2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Annual Performance Plan/Annual 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: 2002); U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration: FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan , FY 

2001 Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); Health Resources and Services Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration: Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance 

Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002); National Institutes of Health, Final FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, 

Revised Final FY 2002 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, and FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: February 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2001 Annual Program 

Performance Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002); U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2002). 

Agriculture For each performance goal, Agriculture discussed 

the validity and accuracy of its performance data. 

For example, in the section “data assessment” for 

the performance indicator number of cumulative risk 

assessments used to inform risk management 

decisionmaking and policy, Agriculture stated that 

the data are reliable. 

Agriculture did not discuss data limitations for its 

goals related to foodborne illnesses.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department or agency

How did the agencies discuss the 

completeness, reliability, and credibility of their 

performance data?

Are known shortcomings in the data 

acknowledged and steps to resolve or minimize 

the shortcomings described? 
Page 71 GAO-03-320 Results-Oriented Management

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contact Elizabeth H. Curda, (202) 512-4040

Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made 

significant contributions to this report: Steven J. Berke, Lisa M. Brown, 

Amy M. Choi, Peter J. Del Toro, Nancy M. Eibeck, and Debra L. Johnson.

(450148)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00